FROM    THE   LIBRARY   OF 
REV.    LOUIS    FITZGERALD    BENSON.   D.  D. 

BEQUEATHED    BY    HIM   TO 

THE    LIBRARY   OF 

PRINCETON   THEOLOGICAL   SEMINARY 


Section         T^'l 


PSALM 


AN 


EXAMINATION   OF  AUTHORITY 


MAKING  UNINSPIRED  SONGS, 


AND    FOR 


USING  THEM  IN  THE   FORMAL  WORSHIP  OF  GOD. 


J.    13.    JOHNSTON, 

PASTOR    UNITED    PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH,    ST.  CLAIRSVILLE,    0. 


11  But  in  vain  tlioy  do  worship  me,  teaching  for  doctrines  the  commandments  of 
men.'' — Matt.  x\\  9. 


ST.  CLAIRSVILLE,  Ohio: 

JOHN     STUART. 

1871. 


TO 

THE  MEMORY   OF 

MY   DEARLY   BELOVED 

AND 

VENERABLE  FATHER  AND  BROTHER 

IN 

TnE   MINISTRY, 

REV.     JOHN    T.     PRESSBY,     D.  D., 

THIS   LITTLE   VOLUME 

IS 

VERY   AFFECTIONATELY   INSCRIBED 

BY  TnE   AUTHOR, 

J.  B.  JOHNSTON. 
St.  Clairsville,  0.,  May,  1871. 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  I. 

PRINCIPLES  PECULIAR  TO  THE  ORDINANCE  OF  PRAYER  EXAM- 
INED, AS  PRELIMINARY  TO  THE  QUESTION  INVOLVING  THE 
ANALOGY   OF   PRAYER,    PREACHING  AND  PRAISE. 

What  are  the  essential  elements  of  prayer? — Human  inability  to 
pray — The  spirit  of  prayer  a  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit — This  grace 
a  promised  blessing — Acceptable  prayer  is  inspired — This  inspira- 
tion explained  and  distinguished 17 

CHAPTER  II. 

AN    EXAMINATION   OF    TnE   ASSUMED   ANALOGY  AND   PARALLEL- 
ISM  BETWEEN   PRAYER,    PREACHING  AND   PRAISE. 

The  assumption  stated  and  questions  examined — Scriptural  elements 
of  the  ordinance  of  preaching  the  gospel — Principles  of  analogy 
applied — Scriptural  elements  of  the  ordinance  of  praise — Impor- 
tant distinctions  applied — Parallelism  found  wanting 23 

CHAPTER  III. 

REVIEW    OF    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    UNINSPIRED    PRAYER,    PRAISE 
AND   PREACHING,    AND   THEIR   ASSUMED   PARALLELISM. 

Pveview  of  a  reviewer — Inspired  and  uninspired  men  placed  in  the 
same  category — Divine  inspiration  and  poetic  genius  in  the  same 
category  —  Authority  of  Divine  inspiration  weakened  —  Illogical 
comparisons — Mistranslations,  paraphrases,  etc.,  examined — Fal- 
lacy exposed — Absurd  claims  of  Church  prerogative — The  Church 
passing  on  translations,  or  versions,  not  analogous  to  passing  on 

Hymn-Books 48 

5 


D  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  IV. 

EXAMINATION  OF  SCRIPTURE  AUTHORITY  CLAIMED  FOR  MAKING 
AND  USING,  IN  TIIE  FORMAL  WORSHIP  OF  GOD,  UNINSPIRED 
SONGS. 

In  what  we  a^rce — In  what  Ave  differ — Demand  of  negative  proof  un- 
reasonable— In  the  true  issue  our  brethren  affirm — Five  affirmative 
Proof-Texts  for  the  Presbyterian  system  of  Psalmody — Our  friends 
argue  both  sides  of  the  true  issue — Irrelevant  verbal  criticism — 
Appeal  to  reason  and  argument  from  the  "  stronghold  "  texts — 
Authority  from  command — A  representative  paragraph  examined — 
The  leading  point  of  assumption,  its  identities  and  deductions 
therefrom — The  argument  from  Scripture  example — Entrance  into 
Jerusalem,  Luke  xix.  38  — "  Pattern "  for  Presbyterian  hyinn- 
niaking — The  second  "pattern"  case  for  so  making,  Acts  iv.  24 — 
Impromptu  Prayer-meeting,  or  Committee  on  Revision  of  Bible 
Psalms — Commentators — Barnes  and  Jacobus — Reflections 81 

CHAPTER  V. 

THE   SCOTTISH  VERSION   OF    TIIE   BOOK   OF    PSALMS  VINDICATED 
AS  A   TRANSLATION. 

Importance  attached  to  the  question  of  translation — No  other  version 
subjected  to  such  extreme  criticism  —  Mistranslation  defined  — 
Charges  of  gross  mistranslations  examined — The  First,  the  Six- 
teenth, and  the  Sixty-ninth  Psalms  vindicated  from  charges  of 
gross  mistranslation — Mistranslations  in  the  prose  Bible  compared 
•with  the  worst  examples  in  Rouse — Charges  of  patchwork  and  para- 
phrase of  Rouse  examined — Manufactured  patches  charged  to  the 
account  of  Rouse — Specimens  of  similar  and  greater  patches  in  our 
English  version  —  Various  classes  of  specimens — Use  of  Divine 
names,  when  not  in  the  original,  charged  as  a  prejudice  against 
Rouse — Superabundance  of  similar  instances  in  our  prose  Bible 112 

CHAPTER  VI. 

TIIE   SCOTTISH   VERSION    COMPARED   WITH   TIIE   SEPTUAGINT. 

Why  this  comparison — Its  importance  in  this  discussion — The  estab- 
lished Opinion  and  decision  of  the  Churches  in  regard  to  the  Sep- 
tuagint  as  a  translation — Its  defects  compared  with  those  of  the 


CONTENTS.  7 

Scottish  version — The  claims  of  the  Scottish  version  sustained  by 
such  comparison  —  Luther's  translation  incidentally  noticed  —  In- 
ferences   147 

CHAPTER  VII. 

CONCLUSION. 

The  argument  from  history — Very  briefly  noticed — Of  comparatively 
little  importance  in  this  controversy — Yet  some  facts  of  history  with 
consideration — The  Palatinate  Churches — History  not  the  rule  of 
faith  and  worship — The  mistake  and  its  fatal  consequences — Appeal 
to  our  readers — Address  to  brethren  in  the  ministry — Appeal  to  the 
friends  of  union 157 


INTRODUCTION. 


\T7E  have  endeavored  to  explore  the  field  of  controversy, 
on  the  subject  of  psalmody,  and  to  ascertain  what 
are  the  true  issues  involved.  The  Presbyterian  churches 
practically  differ  upon  a  vital  question  in  relation  to  the 
matter  of  divinely  instituted  worship.  This  practical  dif- 
ference is  the  legitimate  fruit  of  a  difference,  somewhere, 
in  some  fundamental  principle ;  or  there  must  be  want  of 
integrity  to  principle  somewhere.  The  latter  would  be 
uncharitable,  if  directly  charged,  and  must  not  be  enter- 
tained. We  misunderstand  the  subject,  or  wre  misunder-  , 
one  another.  Perhaps  there  is  misunderstanding  in  regard 
to  both. 

These  are  certainly  very  plain  first  principles  common 
to  the  organic  faith  of  all  true  Presbyterians,  which,  if  con- 
sistently applied,  would  bind  us  all  together  in  one  practice 
in  the  formal  worship  of  God.  Here  is  a  fundamental 
principle,  regulating  the  Divine  worship,  to  which  we  are 
all  pledged,  occupying  a  prominent  place  in  the  organic 
law  common  to  us  all — 

" But  the  acceptable  way  of  worshipping  the  true  God 
is  instituted  by  himself,  and  so  limited  by  his  own  revealed 
will,  that  he  may  not  be  worshipped  according  to  the  im- 
aginations and  devices  of  men — or  any  other  way  not  pre- 

9 


10  INTRODUCTION. 

scribed  in  the  holy  scripture."  "  But  in  vain  do  they 
worship  me,  teaching  for  doctrines  the  commandments  of 
men." 

Losing  sight  of  these  first  principles,  we  soon  diverge 
from  the  common  line,  and  fall  out  by  the  way.  It  is 
high  time  that  we  were  all,  in  this  controversy,  brought 
bark  to  principles  in  common,  and  that  we  shape  our  dis- 
cussions accordingly. 

On  the  one  hand,  most  of  the  treatises  in  favor  of  a 
scripture  psalmody  have  been  apologies  for  the  Book  of 
Psalms;  or,  defences  of  their  use  in  the  worship  of  God, 
to  the  exclusion  of  human  compositions  ;  or,  their  suitable- 
ness for  worship  in  New  Testament  times ;  or,  their  supe- 
rior excellence  to  all  human  songs.  Most  of  these  forms 
of  discussion  involve  mere  truisms — matter  beyond  legiti- 
mate debate  among  intelligent  Christians.  The  Psalms 
of  the  Bible  need  no  apology.  They  need  no  defence ; 
since  neither  God,  nor  his  works,  nor  his  word  need  any 
defence.  We  make  no  attempt  to  show  their  fitness  for 
the  worship  of  God,  or  the  authority  for  their  use.  God 
made  them — fitted  them  for  his  praise,  and  commands  us 
to  sing.  Treatises  in  the  forms  referred  to  are  very  well 
in  their  place.  They  are  helpers  of  the  faith  of  pious 
Christians  who  feed  on  God's  word.  Yet  they  may  not 
meet  the  main  points  in  this  issue  on  the  psalmody  ques- 
tion. 

On  the  other  hand,  our  friends,  in  pleading  their  cause 
of  a  human  psalmody,  are  very  careful  to  avoid  the  dis- 
cussion of  first  principles,  and  their  application  here;  and 
ill'-  better  to  divert  from  the  real  question}  demand  of  us 
authority  for  the  exclusive  use  of  inspired  songs.  About 
the  authority  to  use  the  inspired  songs  of  the  Bible,  there 
is  not  the  shadow  of  dispute.  No  sane  Christian  holds  that 
it  La  wrong  to  sing  the  songs  of  the  Bible  in  the  worship 


INTRODUCTION.  11 

of  God.  Who,  unless  a  pagan,  or  a  turk,  or  an  infidel, 
will  refuse  to  sing,  living  or  dying,  the  twenty-third 
Psalm  ?  So  far  as  inspired  songs  are  concerned  we  all  go 
together,  by  consent  of  all.  What  have  wTe  to  affirm  in 
debate  here  ?  What  have  wre  to  prove  ?  Surely  not  what 
no  one  denies.  The  matter  of  difference,  of  debate  and 
proof  lies  elsewhere. 

Our  brethren  diverge  from  the  common  wray  in  which 
we  all  travel  together  in  God's  worship.  They  make  their 
new  songs,  they  worship  with  them,  ask  us  to  join  them, 
affirming  their  authority  for  that  new,  and  different  and 
peculiar  way  of  worship.  Now  are  we  called  to  prove  our 
divine  right  to  worship  in  a  way  our  brethren  affirm  with 
us  to  be  divinely  authorized — a  way  in  which  they  and  we 
actually  worship  together  ?  Or,  is  not  the  onus  probandi 
theirs  to  carry,  not  ours  ?  It  is  certainly  very  convenient, 
in  this  controversial  discussion,  to  repeat  the  euphonious 
phrases,  " The  exclusive  system"  and  to  demand  authority 
for  the  " exclusive  use  of  inspired  songs" 

As  our  brethren  invite  us  to  follow  them  in  their 
new  way  of  making  their  own  matter  of  praise,  we  hear, 
and  weigh  their  assumed  authority — for  they  affirm  they 
have  authority  to  make  their  own  denominational  hymns. 
We  deny.  Here,  in  a  nutshell  comprehension,  is  the  whole 
field  of  controversy.  There  is  no  other.  They  have 
brought  upon  the  stand  their  witnesses.  We  have  heard 
the  testimony  ;  and  have  heard  them  sum  up  the  evidence, 
and  argue  their  case.  Our  work  is  to  try  their  evidence 
in  chief,  cross-examine  their  witnesses,  and  review  the 
whole  argument.  Nor  are  we  to  be  diverted  from  this 
course  by  efforts  to  thrust  upon  us  side  issues,  or  false 
issues. 

The  friends  of  the  Prayer-Book  call  on  us  to  prove  our 
authority  for  exclusive  extempore  prayer,  and  demand  of 


1 2  INTRODUCTION. 

us  to  show  the  wrong  of  reading  prayers.  Rome  uses  the 
wafer,  calls  on  us  to  prove  it  wrong,  and  coolly  demands 
the  authority  for  the  exclusive  me  of  bread  and  wine,  so  of 
the  hymn-book.  Now  we  refuse  to  be  decoyed  by  any 
such  ambush.  We  have  no  text  in  our  Bible  that  names 
either  Wafer,  Prayer-Book,  or  human  Hymn-Book.  Not 
one,  saying  they  are  wrong.  Enough  for  us  that  their 
institution,  as  ways  of  worship,  has  no  place  in  the  Bible. 
It  is  their  friends'  business  to  find  the  institution  there. 
Till  that  is  done  wre  shall  be  content  to  serve  our  Master 
in  what  we  know  to  be  his  way,  without  wafer,  prayer- 
book,  or  new  hymnal. 

The  whole  field  of  argument  occupied  by  our  brethren 
may  be  divided  into  the  following  sections: 

1.  The  argument  of  assumption,  of  hypothesis  and 
speculation,  presented  in  the  form  of  confident  and  com- 
placent triumph,  thus — 

"  If  we  may  make  our  own  prayers,  and  our  own  ser- 
mons, why  may  we  not  make  the  matter  of  our  own 
praise  V* 

So  long  as  the  assumption  here  passes  without  challenge 
and  investigation,  our  friends  will  seem  to  hold  vantage 
ground.  Here  is  assumed  the  very  thing  which  should 
have  been  proved,  before  such  illogical  stride  had  been 
made  to  a  conclusion  remote  from  the  premises.  Are 
these  parallelisms?  Do  the  points  of  analogy  warrant  the 
assumption  as  true,  the  very  matter  to  be  proved  ?  The 
fact  that  with  our  brethren,  everywhere,  this  assumption 
seems  to  be  used  as  unquestioned  and  unquestionable,  has 
induced  us  to  give  it  more  elaborate  consideration.  We 
ask  from  our  readers  here,  a  patient,  persevering  and 
thorough  investigation  of  all  the  principles  involved. 

2.  The  argument  of  high  church  prerogative — The  Di- 
vine authority  lodged  in  the  Supreme  Judicatory  of  the 


INTRODUCTION.  13 

church,  to  make  and  authorize  church  creeds,  and  on  the 
same  principle  to  make  and  authorize  the  matter  of  the 
church's  worship.  While  it  is  conceded  that  no  man  has 
the  right  to  prepare  songs  of  praise  to  be  used  in  the 
worship  of  God,  yet  it  is  presumed  to  be  lodged  with  the 
"church  representative"  By  what  authority  does  Rome 
declare  the  Pope  infallible  ? — What  the  principle  ? 

3.  It  is  assumed  that  the  command  to  sing  Psalms, 
hymns  and  spiritual  songs  implies  the  authority  to  make 
the  matter  to  be  sung.  The  following  three  texts,  it  is 
assumed,  furnish  authority  to  make  the  songs  :  1  Cor.  xiv. 
26;  Eph.  v.  17;  Col.  iii.  16.  The  two  following  texts 
furnish  the  example  after  which  the  making  is  to  be  per- 
formed :  Luke  xix.  38 ;  Acts  iv.  24.  These  are  the 
"  strong  hold  authority  "  for  uninspired  hymns. 

4.  The  Scottish  version  is  denounced  in  the  form  of 
attack  upon  Rouse,  as  mere  "  patch-work,  paraphrase — no 
version  at  all."  Rouse  tried  by  another  version,  and  not 
by  the  original  text,  and  summarily  condemned,  it  be- 
comes an  item  of  some  importance,  in  the  vindication  of 
the  truth,  to  give  some  attention  to  the  subject,  and  settle 
the  question  in  regard  to  the  claims  of  the  Scottish  version 
to  a  place  among  recognized  translations.  Do  we,  as 
charged,  sing  uninspired  Psalms  while  professing  to  sing 
inspired  matter  exclusively?  It  is  our  right  to  review 
this  charge. 

Where  churches  differ,  and  where  their  differences  are 
the  cause  of  their  separation,  nothing  can  be  more  im- 
portant— the  parties  being  equally  honest — than  to  under- 
stand precisely  the  questions  at  issue.  Parties  may  beat 
the  air,  and  so  exhaust  their  strength,  while  strengthening 
mutual  prejudices,  and  their  discussions  fail  to  bring  them 
any  nearer  to  an  understanding  of  the  truth,  and  of  one 
another.     On  the  other  hand,  while  the  charges  are  rung 


14  INTRODUCTION. 

upon  the  "  want  of  fetters  in  the  matter  of  praise  in 
worship,  as  in  preaching,"  we  shall  remain  in  data  quo,  or 
in  retrogression  in  regard  to  union. 

Rouse's  paraphrase — Rouse's  party — Rouse's  version, 
have  nothing  to  do  with  the  question  of  union  here,  so  far 
as  honest  and  intelligent  men  are  concerned.  Nor  is  it 
anywhere  near  this,  where  the  issue  lies,  involving  the 
question  of  union.  It  lies  deeper,  and  is  broader  than  this 
silly  thing.  If  Rouse's  version  were  thrown  into  the  sea, 
the  barrier  stands  intact  in  all  its  mountain  largeness, 
since  the  songs  of  the  Bible  remain  intact,  and  the  distinc- 
tion between  the  ordinance  of  praise  and  preaching  stands 
marked  in  palpable  lines  on  the  pages  of  the  Bible. 

Sermons,  infallible  by  divine  inspiration,  never  was 
God's  divinely  appointed  ordinance  of  preaching ;  but  un- 
inspired men,  ordained  and  appointed  to  preach  uninspired 
sermons,  with  specific  directions  to  all  hearers  to  bring 
them  all  to  the  test  of  the  inspired  standard — this  is  God's 
ordinance  of  preaching.  God  has  given  largely  and  abund- 
antly inspired  matter  of  praise — has  commanded  to  sing, 
to  sing  only — and  not  one  line  in  all  his  word  suggestive 
of  the  thought,  in  regard  to  the  duty  or  privilege  of  test- 
ing one  line  by  the  unerring  standard  of  God's  word,  of 
all  we  may  sing  in  his  worship. 

It  is  not  a  question  in  issue  whether  man,  by  divine  ordi- 
nation, may  make  and  preach  uninspired,  fallible  sermons. 
It  is  a  question  in  issue  whether  it  is  God's  work  or  man's 
to  make  the  songs  of  praise  with  which  God  is  to  be 
worshipped.  This  is  just  the  issue.  To  disabuse  the 
mind  of  other  issues,  and  bring  to  this,  is  the  object  of  OUT 

feeble  effort,  in  so  far  as  this  part  of  our  work  is  concerned. 

Believing  that  the  divided  worship   of  God,  in   all    the 

churches,   is  the   most   decisive  element  note  sundering 

evangelical    departments    of  the    household    of  faith,  we 


INTRODUCTION.  1 6 

have  been  induced  to  present  this  humble  work  for  the 
consideration  of  union-loving  Christians,  whose  creeds  in 
regard  to  doctrine  and  order  are  substantially  the  same. 

"Behold,  how  good  and  how  pleasant  it  is  for  brethren 
to  dwell  together  in  unity."  Zion's  "  watchmen  shall 
lift  up  the  voice;  with  the  voice  together  shall  they  sing; 
for  they  shall  see  eye  to  eye,  when  the  Lord  shall  bring 
again  Zion.,, 


CHAPTER  I. 

PRINCIPLES  PECULIAR  TO  THE  ORDINANCE  OF  PRAYER 
EXAMINED,  AS  PRELIMINARY  TO  THE  QUESTION  IN- 
VOLVING THE  ANALOGY  OF  PRAYER,  PREACHING  AND 
PRAISE. 

What  are  the  essential  elements  of  prayer? — Human  inability  to  pray — The 
spirit  of  prayer  a  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit — This  grace  a  promised  bles- 
sing— Acceptable  prayer  is  inspired — This  inspiration  explained  and 
distinguished. 

rPHE  salient  point,  the  defiant  argument  for  the  use  of  a 

human  psalmody,  may  be  stated  thus  :  As  we  make  our 

own  prayers  and  sermons,  so  may  we  make  our  own  praise. 

This  assumes  that  prayer,  preaching  and  praise  are 
analogous,  and  present  parallelisms.  Now,  if  the  assump- 
tion be  true,  the  conclusion  is  logical,  and  the  divine  right 
of  an  uninspired  psalmody  is  established. 

"We  at  once  concede  the  divine  appointment  of  extem- 
pore prayer  without  the  book,  and  that  we  are  not  con- 
fined to  the  inspired  prayers  of  Scripture.  So,  of  the 
sermon.  We  concede  the  divine  authority  for  uninspired 
extempore  sermonizing.  We  are  not  confined  in  preach- 
ing to  the  inspired  sermons  of  the  Bible.  Reading  ser- 
mons from  the  Bible  is  not  preaching  at  all,  as  Christ  has 
commissioned  an  ordained  gospel  ministry. 

To  weigh  fairly  the  argument  of  analogy  here,  we  must 
distinctly  define  each  of  these  ordinances,  prayer,  preach- 
ing and  praise,  and  if  their  distinctions  and  discrepancies 
are  more  prominent  than  their  analogies,  then  the  argu- 
ment fails.  To  this  end  we  must  have  scriptural  views  of 
2*  17 


18  PSALMODY. 

these  ordinances,  of  their  nature,  their  character  and  their 
essential  elements. 

Then,  what  £9 prayer  f  Not  prayer  in  form  merely  ;  but, 
what  is  the  prayer  of  God's  appointment,  which  he  hears 
and  answers  always?  The  prayer  that  God  requires,  that 
his  promise  recognizes  and  that  he  accepts,  may  be  thus 
defined :  Prayer  is  an  offering  up  to  God  the  desires  of  the 
heart,  for  things  agreeable  to  his  will,  by  faith  in  Christ, 
inspired  and  directed  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  Such  desires, 
offered  thus  to  God,  constitute  prayer — not  the  prayer  of 
the  Pharisee,  but  of  the  publican. 

To  such  prayer  neither  saint  nor  sinner  is  competent, 
without  the  special  grace  of  the  Divine  Spirit  implanting 
the  desires  offered.  The  sinner  cannot  be  a  fit  subject  of 
such  desires.  His  unrenewed  heart  "  is  enmity  against 
God,  is  not  subject  to  the  law  of  God,  neither  indeed  can 
be.,,  "  The  natural  man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the 
Spirit  of  God ;  for  they  are  foolishness  unto  him  ;  neither 
can  he  know  them,  because  they  are  spiritually  discerned.,, 
He  can  neither  know  nor  feel  spiritual  want.  He  is  spirit- 
ually dead.     There  is  no  breath  in  him. 

The  saint,  by  regenerating  grace,  is  made  the  fit  subject 
of  spiritual  desires.  His  new  nature  can  entertain  such 
desires.  He  is  prepared  to  receive  them,  as  the  good  heart 
to  receive  the  seed  of  the  word.  Yet,  this  saint  cannot 
pray  without  special  grace — without  the  spirit  of  grace 
and  supplication  poured  upon  him  by  the  Divine  Spirit  as 
the  Author  of  prayer.  "  Likewise  the  Spirit  also  helpeth 
our  infirmities  ;  for  we  know  not  what  we  should  pray  i<>r 
as  we  ought ;  but  the  Spirit,  itself,  maketh  intercession  for 
us  with  groanings  which  cannot  be  uttered.  And  he  that 
searcheth  the  hearts  knoweth  what  is  the  mind  of  the 
Spirit,  because  he  maketh  intercession  for  the  saints 
according  to  the  will  of  God."     Saints  are  taught  to  say, 


PRAYER,  PREACHING   AND    PRAISE.  19 

in  regard  to  prayer :  "  Teach  us  what  we  shall  say  unto 
him,  for  we  cannot  order  our  speech  by  reason  of  dark- 
ness." It  is  not  in  the  power  of  a  believer,  even,  to  origi- 
nate in  his  own  heart  an  impulse  producing  a  spiritual 
desire,  and  to  breathe  out  that  desire  to  God  without  the 
special  influence  of  the  Divine  Spirit  as  the  Author  of 
prayer.  That  desire  which  constitutes  prayer  is  the  direct 
implantation  of  the  Spirit,  and  beyond  the  originating 
power  of  the  proper  subject  of  such  implantation,  as  Adam, 
when  found  a  creature,  was  a  proper  subject  for  receiving 
and  entertaining  the  breath  of  life,  yet  he  could  not 
breathe  into  himself  that  breath.  The  spiritual  nature 
can  receive  and  entertain  the  spiritual  breathing,  but  the 
Spirit  of  God  gives  the  breath  the  desire  which  is  the 
essence  of  prayer. 

TIIE  SPIRIT,  AS  A  SPIRIT    OF    GRACE  AND    SUPPLICATION,  IS 
PROMISED   TO   MAKE  SUCH  PRAYER. 

"  I  will  pour  upon  the  house  of  David,  and  upon  the 
inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  the  Spirit  of  grace  and  supplica- 
tion.,,  Zach.  xii.  10.  The  Spirit  helpeth  our  infirmities, 
making  intercession  for  us  with  groanings — making  inter- 
cession according  to  the  will  of  God.  The  promises  of  the 
aid  of  the  Spirit  in  making  prayer  are  peculiar  and  dis- 
tinguishing. In  regard  to  aid  in  making  hymns  for  the 
worship  of  God,  there  is  no  such  promise.  Dr  Owen  has 
well  remarked — "  It  cannot  be  denied  that  the  assistance 
which  the  Holy  Spirit  gives  us,  in  our  prayers  and  suppli- 
cations, is  more  frequently  and  expressly  asserted  in  the 
Scriptures  than  any  other  operation  of  his  whatever." 

THE   PRAYER   OF   FAITH,  ACCEPTABLE    TO    GOD,  IS  INSPIRED 
BY  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT. 

Inspiration  should  be  defined,  and  carefully  distinguished 
here.     The  term  is  so  variously  used  there  should  be  an 


20  TSALMODY. 

understanding  as  to  its  use  in  this  discussion.  It  is  ap- 
plied to  poetic  genius.  This  is  the  highest  idea  the 
Chinese  have  of  inspiration.  It  is  used  of  intoxicating 
liquors,  and  of  almost  all  kinds  of  brain  stimulants.  It  is 
used  of  the  passions,  anger,  rage,  love,  etc.  Most  of  these 
uses  of  the  term  are  very  figurative.  It  is  applied  to  mere 
intellectual  endowments,  as  Job — "And  the  inspiration  of 
the  Almighty  giveth  them  understanding." 

In  all  the  instances  noticed,  the  term  inspiration  is  used 
in  a  loose,  and  improper  sense.  As  the  works  of  creation 
and  providence  differ  materially,  and  yet  are  Divine 
works,  so  all  these  operations,  which  are  called  inspiration, 
present  very  different  operations  of  the  Divine  Spirit. 
Creation  brings  from  nothing  into  being.  Providence 
sustains  and  controls  what  exists.  Regeneration  brings 
into  being  a  new  spiritual  creature  by  creative  power. 
Sanctification  produces  its  appropriate  changes  upon  its 
subject.  There  are  inspirations  which  breathe  into  the 
mind  new  creations,  as  the  breath  of  life  was  breathed 
into  Adam.     These  are  inspirations  in  the  proper  sense. 

This  sense  of  the  term  inspiration,  which  breathes  new 
creations  into  the  mind,  by  the  Spirit,  is  its  use  applied  to 
prayer  and  the  Holy  Scriptures.  The  one  is  the  inspira- 
tion of  desires.  The  other  is  the  inspiration  of  words. 
The  words  of  the  Scriptures  are  inspired  by  the  Holy 
Spirit.  This  makes  them  the  veritable  word  of  God,  on 
the  principle  of  authorship. 

The  question  of  the  "  verbal  inspiration"  of  the  Bible  we 
will  not  here  discuss.  The  reader  may  consult,  for  the 
defence  of  this  cardinal  truth,  such  standard  works  as 
Buck's  Theo.  Die;  Brown,  of  Had.,  Die.  and  Theo.;  Dr. 
Scott's  Com.;  Prof.  Dick's  Theo.;  Basis  Union  U.  P. 
Church  ;  (Jausscn,  of  Geneva,  etc. 

The  Scriptures  state  the  doctrine  of  inspired    prayer, 


PRAYER,  PREACHING  AND  PRAISE.  21 

almost  in  explicit  terms.  "  I  called  upon  thy  name,  O 
Lord,  out  of  the  low  dungeon.  Thou  hast  heard  my 
voice ;  hide  not  thine  ear  at  my  breathing,  my  cry." 
Lam.  iii.  55,  56.  Here  Jeremiah  calls  his  prayer,  his 
breathing.  " My  breathing,  my  cry."  A  breathing  organ- 
ism is  chosen  as  the  figure  by  which  the  Spirit  illustrates 
prayer.  A  breathing  organic  frame  is  a  proper  subject  of 
respiration.  It  breathes.  It  inhales  breath.  In  this 
spiritual  respiration  of  prayer,  the  only  question  around 
which  a  doubt  can  be  thrown  is  this,  viz. :  By  what  power 
is  the  breath  of  prayer  breathed  into  the  soul,  and  the 
respiration  sustained. 

Then,  whence  the  first  impulse,  in  the  heart,  given  to  a 
gracious,  spiritual  and  acceptable  desire  offered  up  to  God, 
which  he  will  answer  as  the  prayer  of  faith?  There  can 
be  but  one  of  two  answers  properly  entertained.  Either, 
the  desire  in  question  receives  its  first  impulse  from  the 
sinner  himself,  and  so  is  self-willed  and  self-made ;  or,  it  is 
from  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  by  him  indited.  Can  there 
be  any  other  conclusion?  What  other?  Christ  says, 
"Without  me  ye  can  do  nothing."  Without  his  power 
and  providence,  absolutely  and  universally,  nothing. 
Without  his  Spirit  and  grace,  spiritually  and  acceptably, 
nothing;  each  spiritual  thing  according  to  its  kind,  and 
according  to  the  character  of  the  grace  promised — "grace 
for  grace;"  grace  according  to  need;  strength  as  the  day 
is ;  for  prayer  according  to  our  need,  and  the  promise  to 
supply  that  need.  Is  the  breathing — the  originating  of 
acceptable  desires  in  the  heart  an  exception?  Then,  why 
the  promises  of  the  Spirit  to  do  for  us  that  very  thing, 
without  which  the  prayer  of  faith  cannot  be?  To  "powr 
out  a  Spirit  of  grace  and  supplication" 

And  here,  let  it  be  borne  in  mind  that  there  are  no 
promises  in  the  Bible,  warranting  aid  in  any  other  duty, 


22  PSALMODY. 

like  the  promises  in   regard  to  prayer.     None  similar  for 
ing  songs  ;  none  similar  for  making  sermons,  for  teach- 
in--,   for  exhortation,   for    argument    in    defending    truth. 
Here  the  promise  secures  groanings  that  we  may  not  be 

able  to  utter — feelings  of  need,  and  desires  Ave  cannot 
express.  How  wonderfully  strange — how  distinguishing 
and  peculiar  the  promises  in  regard  to  prayer! 

Prayer,  we  conclude,  is,  therefore,  inspired.  It  is  not 
made  by  the  will  and  power  of  the  human  heart.  The 
Divine  Spirit,  according  to  his  office  and  work,  makes,  by 
inspiration,  the  desires  of  the  heart  in  prayer.  Of  these 
desires  he  is  the  Author,  as  he  is  the  Author  of  the  words 
in  the  inspired  Scriptures. 


CHAPTEK  II. 

AN  EXAMINATION  OF  THE  ASSUMED  ANALOGY  AND  PARAL- 
LELISM BETWEEN  PRAYER,  PREACHING  AND  PRAISE. 

The  assumptions  stated  and  questions  examined — Scriptural  elements  of 
the  ordinance  of  preaching  the  gospel — Principles  of  analogy  applied — 
Scriptural  elements  of  the  ordinance  of  praise — Important  distinctions 
applied — Parallelism  found  wanting. 

"\T7E  have,  perhaps,  said  enough  in  the  former  chapter, 
in  regard  to  how  and  by  whom  the  matter  of  accepta- 
ble prayer  is  to  be  provided.  Here,  we  think  the  Bible 
way  is  plain.  The  standing  office  and  work  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  should  remove  all  difficulty  in  the  mind  of  every 
believing  sinner.  His  office  and  work  is  to  prepare  prayers 
for  all  the  saints  as  they  are  needed. 

Doubtless,  too,  to  the  sincere  Christian  it  is  important 
to  know  the  mind  of  the  Spirit  revealed  in  the  word,  in 
regard  to  the  ordinance  of  praise.  Not  so  much,  however, 
in  regard  to  the  nature  and  duty  of  singing  praise,  simply. 
This  is  plain  to  all.  About  this  there  cannot  well  be  any 
dispute  whatever.  He  that  runs  may  read.  But  how, 
and  by  whom,  the  songs  of  praise  to  be  sung,  are  to  be 
provided,  that  is  not  quite  so  plain  to  all.  Indeed,  here  is 
the  whole  field  of  difficulty. 

The  following  question  is  ever  pressed  as  if  sufficient  to 
settle  all  doubts  involved — "If  we  may  make  our  own 
prayers,  may  we  not  make  our  own  songs  of  praise,  and 
offer  them  to  God?"  We  answer — certainly,  "■(/*;"  If  we 
may  make  oar  prayers.  But  we  see  from  the  word  of  God 
wc  neither  may  nor  can   make  our  own  prayers.     That 

2'6 


24  PSALMODY. 

work  belongs  to  the  office  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  He  is  en- 
gaged to  do  that  work  for  us ;  and  we  think,  that  we  poor 
sinners  had  better  trust  Him  with  it.  And  farther,  as  if 
it  were  the  same — it  is  asked — "  If  we  are  not  confined  to 
the  words  of  scripture  in  our  prayers,  why  should  we  be 
confined  to  them  in  our  praises?"  So  far  from  admitting 
the  analogy  assumed,  we  are  bound  by  consistency  to  eject 
the  idea  of  being  confined  in  our  prayers  to  any  written 
words  whatever.  AVe  are  not  confined  to  any  written 
words,  because  the  Spirit  is  promised  to  give  us  a  knowl- 
edge and  sense  of  our  need,  and  inspire  for  us  desires  for 
supply.  "  Prayer  is  offering  up  our  desires  to  God." 
Prayers  read  are  unnatural — Prayers  extemporized  are  the 
natural  form  of  expressing  the  inspired  feelings  and 
desires  and  wants  of  the  soul.  The  use  of  written  words 
in  praise  is  perfectly  natural.  Where,  as  an  act  of  reli- 
gious worship,  was  ever  God  praised  by  singing,  without 
words  written  or  recited  ?  The  use  of  extemporized  songs 
in  social  praise  is  more  unnatural  than  written  prayers. 
The  latter,  alas !  too  often  occurs.  Where,  when,  how  or 
by  whom  the  former  ? 

Still  farther,  on  the  assumed  principle  of  analogy  and 
parallelism,  it  is  asked — "if,  in  the  ordinance  of  preach- 
ing, we  are  not  confined  to  the  inspired  words  of  the  ser- 
mons recorded  in  the  Bible,  why,  in  the  ordinance  of 
social  praise  in  the  worship  of  God,  confine  ourselves  to 
the  use  of  the  inspired  songs  of  the  Bible?  Or,  if  we  may 
make  our  own  sermons — if  we  may  use  our  own  uninspired 
words  in  expounding  the  law  and  word  of  God,  and  in  all 
our  ministerial  offers  of  Christ  and  his  salvation  to  sinners, 
and  in  all  our  labors  to  persuade  men  to  come  to  the  Sav- 
iour, why  not  the  same  liberty  in  composing,  penning  and 
preparing  hymns  for  the  social  praise  of  the  church? 
These     questions    seem    to    be    frank,    and    doubtle88    arc 


SCRIPTURE    ELEMENTS   OF   PRAISE.  25 

deemed  pertinent.  Those  who  propound  them  seem  also 
to  believe  them  like  mighty  scales  on  whose  equipoise 
hang  very  grave  issues.  Then  let  these  questions  be  faith- 
fully adjusted.  In  their  adjustment  we  must  bring  them 
to  the  balances  of  the  sanctuary.  "  To  the  law  and  to  the 
testimony ;  if  they  speak  not  according  to  this  word,  it  is 
because  there  is  no  light  in  them." 

Doubtless  it  is  important  to  understand  all  the  princi- 
ples involved  in  these  test  questions.  We  should  know 
wherefore  we  preach.  We  should  know  the  relation  in 
which  preaching  stands  to  the  Bible.  Whether  preaching 
the  gospel  by  the  ordained  ministry,  according  to  Christ's 
commission,  be  expounding  or  reciting  the  words  of  the 
Bible.  We  should  know  the  extent  of  the  commission  to 
preach,  as  commanded  and  as  illustrated  by  the  preaching 
of  Christ  and  his  Apostles.  So,  doubtless,  we  should  know 
wherefore  we  praise  and  wherefore  we  pray ;  and  more — 
how  we  may  secure,  according  to  the  will  of  God,  the  ac- 
ceptable matter  of  all  these.  "  How  shall  we  order  our 
speech  before  God,"  is  the  concern  of  every  good  man. 

Now,  in  regard  to  preaching  and  praising,  let  us  give  a 
little  attention — let  us  see  just  where  wre  are.  As  for 
preaching,  what  is  the  rule?  Are  our  sermons  required  to 
be  inspired  and  infallible  ?  Are  the  words  of  the  sermon 
of  Christ  on  the  Mount,  and  the  wrords  of  the  sermons  of 
any  other,  as  recorded  in  the  Bible,  inspired  and  infallible? 
And  may  wre  search  the  Scriptures,  as  did  the  commended 
Bereans,  to  see  whether  those  things  spoken  by  Christ  in 
that  sermon  on  the  Mount  be  so  ?  May  we  try  any  of  the 
sermons  recorded  in  the  Bible  as  the  noble  Bereans  tried 
some  sermons  they  heard  preached  ?  May  we  try  the  ser- 
mons written  in  the  Bible  as  we  may  try  with  the  Bible 
the  sermons  of  Spurgeon,  or  any  other  preacher?  Were 
those  sermons  heard  by  the  Bereans,  and  by  them  brought 
3 


26  PSALMODY. 

to  the  test  of  the  scriptures,  of  equal  authority  with  the 
sermons  recorded  in  the  Bible,  whether  preached  by  Christ, 
or  any  other  preacher?  What  were  those  sermons?  And 
where  are  they  now  ? 

Again,  it  may  be  of  some  advantage  here  to  inquire  a 
little  farther  into  the  nature  of  the  ordinance  of  preach- 
ing:— Would  reading,  or  reciting  the  sermons  preached 
by  Christ,  and  by  inspiration  recorded  in  the  Bible  as  a 
part  of  the  written  word  of  God,  be  an  exemplification  of 
the  ordinance  of  preaching,  and  the  fulfilment,  in  letter 
and  spirit,  of  the  gospel  commission  and  command  of 
Christ, — "  Go  ye  into  all  the  world  and  preach  the  gospel 
to  every  creature — teaching  all  nations  to  observe  all 
things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you?"  Would  the 
Bereans  have  been  commended  for  bringing  to  the  test  of 
the  Scriptures,  which  they  searched,  that  kind  of  preach- 
ing? 

This,  now,  brings  fairly  before  us  the  following  questions 
of  practical  importance  to  understand, — What  is  a  faithful 
exemplification  of  the  divine  ordinance  of  preaching? 
And  wherein  have  we  a  complete  exemplification  of  the 
divine  ordinance  of  praise  ? 

In  this  connection,  a  passing  remark  only  in  reference 
to  the  second  question — more  hereafter  in  another.  Paul 
says:  "I  will  sing  with  the  spirit,  and  I  will  sing  with 
the  understanding  also."  And  he  instructs  the  Colossiana 
that  their  singing  should  be  "  with  grace  in  their  hearts." 
It  may  be  noticed  that  the  Apostle  does  not  say  he  will 
make  psalms,  or  any  matter  of  praise.  Nor,  that  lie  will 
make  and  sing.  He  does  not  direct  the  Colossians  to 
make  songs,  or  to  sing  songs  made  by  some  Christian 
brother — simply  tq  sing.  Could  Paul  have  sung  the  twenty- 
third  Psalm  with  the  spirit  and  with  the  understanding  f 
Could  the  Christians  of  Colosse  have  fulfilled  the  Apostles 


SCRIPTURE    ELEMENTS   OF   PRAISE.  27 

injunction  to  sing  "  with  grace  in  the  heart,"  by  singing 
any  Bible  song?  Would  singing  the  songs  in  the  Bible 
answer  these  specifications,  and  exemplify  the  ordinance 
of  praise?  If  not,  what  essential  element  is  wanting?  Is 
it  that  the  song  should  have  been  made  by  the  singers 
themselves?  Or  that  some  poet  should  have  made  the 
songs  for  the  occasions  ?     Nothing  of  all  these. 

Again,  as  we  are  passing. — We  have  seen  the  Bible 
authority  and  institution  for  testing  sermons  by  the  scrip- 
tures as  the  Divine  and  permanent  standard  by  which  all 
preaching  is  to  be  tested.  If  the  ordinance  of  praise  in 
regard  to  "  making"  be  parallel,  then  may  we  test  the 
twenty-third  Psalm,  or  any  other  Bible  song  by  the  scrip- 
tures ?  Can  the  scripture  settle  the  question  whether  the 
songs  of  the  Bible  are  scriptural  f  Does  the  Bible  give 
any  directions  for  testing  the  matter  of  the  Psalms,  hymns 
and  spiritual  songs  it  enjoins  us  to  sing?  Does  it  ever 
hint,  even,  that  they  may  not  be  scriptural? — Or  that  they 
should  be  scriptural?  For  that  would  imply  that  they 
might  possibly  be  tmscriptural.  The  Bible  warrants  very 
distinctly  the  conclusion  that  sermons  may  be,  and  often 
are,  iinscripturaL  It  permits  the  conclusion,  too,  that 
unseriptural  prayers  may  be  made  by  good  men  even. 
Christ's  disciples  were  not  free  from  asking  amiss.  Nowhere 
in  the  Bible  is  there  shadow  of  hint  that  the  Christian 
in  observing  God's  ordinance  of  praise,  doing  just  what  he 
requires,  neither  more  nor  less,  can  possibly  sing  unscriptu- 
ral  psalms,  hymns  or  spiritual  songs.  If  the  thing  were 
possible,  why  neither  warning  nor  guard  against  it? 

On  the  answers  to  the  question  propounded  here,  very 
much  depends  in  the  settling  of  the  questions  of  an  in- 
spired psalmody,  as  also,  of  inspired  prayers.  To  facilitate 
the  satisfactory  answering*  of  questions  proposed,  a  few 
more  will  be  pertinent.     Are  we  sure  the  same  line  of 


28  P8ALM0DY. 

argument  is  applicable  to  the  three  different  subjects  of  dis- 
cussion here?  That  all  stand  or  fall  together?  That  the 
making  of  our  own  sermons,  our  own  prayers  and  our  own 
praises  proceed  upon  the  same  principle  of  analogy,  and 
present  parallel  cases  ?  If  so,  then  certainly  Ave  may  make 
Bermons  just  as  the  Apostles  made  them,  to  be  thrown  into 
the  scripture  crucible  for  trial  by  the  noble  Bereans;  and 
BO  may  Ave  all  make  psalms  and  prayers  to  be  subjected  to 
the  same  fiery  ordeal.  For  things,  in  their  nature  and 
from  their  institution  necessarily  rising  no  higher  than 
wripturali  must  stand  subordinated  to  the  standard  of 
scripture. 

SCRIPTURAL     ELEMENTS     OF     THE     DIVINE     ORDINANCE    OF 
TREACIIING    THE    WORD. 

The  scriptural  elements  essential  to  the  ordinance  of 
preaching,  will  be  found,  even  on  slight  examination,  in 
the  command  and  commission  of  Christ,  the  example  of  his 
own  preaching — for  here  he  was  the  perfect  model  who 
spoke  as  man  never  did — and  in  the  examples  of  the 
Apostles,  and  their  epistolary  directions.  Having  here 
ascertained  the  essential  elements  of  this  Divine  ordinance, 
Ave  shall  be  able  the  more  easily  and  safely  to  trace  the 
analogy,  and  discover  the  parallel  lines,  if  they  can  be 
found  anywhere  in  all  the  scriptural  elements  essential  to 
the  ordinances  of  prayer  and  praise.  The  assumptions,  in 
argument,  of  analogy  or  parallelisms,  should  be  self-evi- 
dent, or  at  least,  nearly  so,  before  we  make  them,  and  with- 
out attempt  at  proof,  proceed  to  build  argument  upon 
them.  It  is  very  easy  to  say,  or  to  write — "  if"  as  in  this 
1S8U4 — "if  we  may  make  sermons,  we  may  make  psalms." 
Ait-  the  cases  parallel? — is  I  lie  first  thing  in  order,  "if* 

we  are  seeking  truth. 

Christ  gave  commission   to  "go  into  all  the  world  and 


SCRIPTURE    ELEMENTS   OF    PRAISE.  29 

preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature/'  "  Teaching  them  to 
observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you." 
And  Paul  directing  Timothy,  says :  "  Preach  the  word." 
The  words  of  Christ  and  Paul  here,  bear  this  construction 
— Go  abroad,  cry,  proclaim  by  herald,  speak  to  the  people 
with  the  living  voice.  This  command  is  explained  by 
divine  authority,  Acts  v.  20.  "Go, stand  and  speak  in  the 
temple  to  the  people,  all  the  words  of  this  life."  This  ex- 
tempore speaking  the  gospel  as  a  message  of  good  tidings 
by  herald,  or  voice  of  cries,  is  very  distinctly  exemplified 
in  Christ's  life  and  ministry.  Here  is  the  perfect  model. 
"He  came  to  Nazareth — and,  as  7m  custom  was,  he  went 
into  the  synagogue  on  the  Sabbath-day,  and  stood  up  for 
to  read.  And  there  was  delivered  unto  him  the  book  of 
the  prophet  Esaias."  "  And  he  closed  the  book,  and  lie 
gave  it  again  to  the  minister,  and  sat  down.  And  the 
eyes  of  all  them  that  were  in  the  synagogue  were  fastened 
on  him.  And  he  began  to  say  unto  them,  This  day  is  this 
scripture  fulfilled  in  your  ears.  And  all  bare  him  witness, 
and  wondered  at  the  gracious  words  which  proceeded  out 
of  his  mouth."     Luke  iv.  16-22. 

In  this  very  circumstantial  narrative  of  Christ's  preach- 
ing in  the  synagogue,  we  have,  in  detail,  the  scriptural 
elements  of  his  own  divinely  appointed  ordinance.  Here 
we  have  the  time  set  apart  for  the  public  ministrations  of 
the  gospel,  the  Sabbath-day.  We  have  the  place  for  the 
public  ministrations  of  the  Sabbath,  and  for  the  preaching 
of  the  word,  the  synagogue.  Here  was  the  place  for  the 
reading  and  expounding  of  the  law,  as  was  long  the  cus- 
tom of  the  Jews.  Here  was  an  assembly  of  hearers  con- 
vened to  hear  the  word  according  to  the  order  of  the 
church.  Here  wras  the  Book,  the  inspired  Scriptures, 
which  had  been  read  and  expounded  by  the  ministry,  time 
immemorial.  Christ  rose  and  opened  that  ancient  roll. 
3* 


30  PSALMODY. 

The  Book  of  God.  In  form  lie  read  his  text,  as  it  would 
seem,  after  he  had  announced  "the  place  where  it  was 
written."     It  was  the  book  of  the  prophet  Esaias,  and  the 

Bubject  of  the  text  was  himself  Having  read  aloud  li is 
text,  he  closed  the  book.  In  extempore  address  he  ex- 
pounded what  he  had  read — the  sermon  was  preached  If 
Christ's  commands  and  example  illustrate  each  other,  as 
they  do  here,  then  Ave  are  authorized  to  understand  his 
meaning  is,  when  he  says  in  his  word — "  Go  preach  to 
every  creature/'  that  we  are  to  do  as  he  did  at  Nazareth 
in  the  synagogue  on  the  Sabbath-day ;  for  he  there  preached 
the  gospel.  Then,  obeying  his  command,  and  after  his 
example,  we  should  make  the  inspired  word  of  God  our 
text-book — should  read  that  inspired  word,  and,  according 
to  the  best  of  our  ability,  faithfully  expound  and  apply 
its  inspired  teaching.  Here  we  may  notice  that,  when  we 
preach  according  to  Christ's  commission  and  after  his  ex- 
ample, our  text  is  certainly  inspired,  while  our  sermon  is 
as  certainly  uninspired,  is  human  and  fallible  and  should 
be,  by  every  hearer,  brought  to  the  test  of  the  written 
and  infallible  word,  and  there  tried  as  the  noble  Bere- 
ans  tried  the  gospel  sermons  of  Paul  and  Silas.  Acts 
xvii.  11.  Among  all  the  elements  of  gospel  sermons,  ac- 
cording to  the  divine  ordinance  of  preaching,  inspiration 
or  infallibility  can  find  no  place.  Their  highest  attain- 
ments can  reach  no  higher  than  scriptural;  and  then 
subordinated  to  the  word,  the  only  rule.  So  the  commen- 
ded Bereans  judged  of  the  preaching  of  the  inspired  Apos- 
tle of  the  Gentiles.  Errors  in  preaching  have  a  very 
ready  corrective;  since  the  church  is  well  warned  to  be 
on  her  guard  ;  and  especially,  since,  of  divine  right,  all 
have  the  unerring  Standard,  and  the  example  of  the  -Cere- 
al).- to  use  it  as  a  test  of  every  sermon  heard. 

The  distinction  betwixt  the  use  of  the  so-called  sermons 


SCRIPTURE    ELEMENTS   OF   PRAISE.  31 

of  the  Bible,  and  the  preaching  ordained  by  Christ,  by 
him  exemplified,  and  by  Apostles  illustrated,  is  as  broad 
as  betwixt  the  reading  and  the  preaching  of  the  word. 
The  use  of  the  one  is  competent  to  all,  saints  and  sinners, 
male  and  female,  official  and  unofficial  persons.  The 
privilege  and  practice  of  the  other  are  confined  to  the  or- 
dained ministry  exclusively.  This  ordinance  is  limited  in 
its  administrations  to  those  ordained  by  the  laying  on  of 
the  hands  of  the  Presbytery,  in  the  name  of  the  head  of 
the  church,  appointing  to  the  work  of  preaching  uninspired 
sermons,  prepared  by  uninspired  men,  without  extraordi- 
nary gifts.  Their  work  is,  nevertheless,  subjected  to  the 
scrutiny  of  the  humblest  Christian,  with  the  law7  and  the 
testimony  in  his  hand.  Such  is  the  character,  and  such  is 
the  status  of  the  divinely  appointed  sermon  preached  by 
the  ministry  bearing  Christ's  commission. 

Do  we  find  in  all  this,  and  in  divinely  appointed  praise 
and  prayer  a  parallel?  Do  these  all  proceed  upon  the 
same  principle?  Is  the  same  line  of  argument  applicable 
to  them  all  ?  Let  us  see — For  here  lies  the  pivotal  point 
on  which  turns  the  whole  issue  involved  in  the  question  of 
a  scripture  psalmody.  But  let  us  again  state  the  ques- 
tion,— "  If  we  may  make  our  own  sermons,  and  must  not 
confine  ourselves  to  the  very  wTords  of  the  inspired  sermons 
of  the  Bible,  may  we  not  make  the  material  of  our  own 
praises,  and  go  outside  of  the  Bible  and  gather  composi- 
tion for  the  one  as  for  the  other  ?  Or — for  we  wish  to 
meet  fairly  and  fully  the  matter  at  issue — since  scriptural 
sermons,  fairly  expounding  God's  lawT — since  expositions 
unfolding  the  mysteries  of  the  gospel  infolded  in  the  in- 
spired Text-Book — since  thus  "helping  the  hope"  of  God's 
people,  all  exemplify  the  divine  ordinance  of  preaching 
the  gospel;  why  not  our  self-composed  scriptural  praises, 


32  PSALMODY. 

as  also  our  prayers,  exemplify  the  ordinance  of  praise,  and 
of  prayer,  as  well  f 

We  have  noticed  the  scriptural  views  of  inspired  prayer, 
the  scripture  evidence  on  which  such  prayer  is  founded, 
and  the  promises  securing  such  inspiration — the  inspira- 
tion of  desires.  We  have  noticed  the  verbal  inspiration  of 
the  Bible,  the  only  inspiration  for  the  ordinance  of  preach- 
ing. We  have  noticed  that  all  promises  in  regard  to  the 
ordinance  of  praise,  in  fact,  in  spirit,  in  letter  or  in  form, 
are  confined  to  the  state  of  the  heart  in  singing.  Or,  per- 
haps, the  attuning  of  the  voice.     What  more? 

Let  us  now  trace  a  little  the  analogy,  the  parallelism, 
so  confidently  assumed — Let  us  carefully  trace  the  princi- 
ple and  line  of  argument  bearing  upon  the  ordinances  of 
preaching,  praise  and  prayer — Let  us  apply  the  principle 
to  the  divine  command  assigning  the  duties  in  regard  to 
these  ordinances — Let  us  apply  the  principle  to  the  mate- 
rial furnished  by  divine  inspiration  for  each  work,  and  to 
the  promises  of  divine  aid  for  the  performance  of  the  work 
assigned;  for  in  all  this  we  shall  find  the  lines  of  Bible 
teaching  clear  and  distinct.  He  that  runs  may  read,  and 
the  wayfaring  man  need  not  err. 

In  regard  to  preaching  sermons,  the  Text-Book,  from 
which  to  preach,  is  furnished  to  the  preacher  by  divine 
inspiration,  is  infallible,  and  cannot  be  the  subject  of 
promised  aid.  This  Text-Book  is  to  be  preached.  The 
charge  is,  "Preach  the  word."  2  Tim.  iv.  2.  "That,  is 
the  word  of  faith  which  we  preach."  Rom.  x.  8.  The 
work  to  which  the  preacher  is  ordained,  is  that  for  which 
he  needs  aid.  That  work  embraces  the  reading  and  study 
of  the  Bible,  to  fit  the  better  for  expounding  its  teachings. 
This,  too,  includes  rightly  dividing  milk  and  meat,  to 
babes  and  strong  men,  each  the  portion  according  to  the 
mind  of  the  Master  revealed  in  his  word.     Then  the  work 


SCRIPTURE     ELEMENTS    OE    PRAISE.  33 

proper,  for  which  all  other  is  preparatory,  is  the  discourse 
addressed  by  the  uninspired  man,  with  the  living  voice  to 
sinners  in  the  Master's  name.  The  sermon  preached  by 
the  uninspired  man,  since  it  may  not  be  scriptural,  may, 
of  divine  right,  be  scrutinized  and  tested  by  the  law  and 
the  testimony,  so  that  every  noble  Berean  may  know 
whether  the  things  spoken  be  so.  Indeed,  to  every  hearer, 
the  command  is,  "  Try  the  spirits."  "For,  the  spirit  of 
the  prophets,  must  be  subject  to  the  Prophets."  The  work 
here,  for  which  material  is  furnished,  and  aid  promised,  is 
perfectly  plain.  To  encourage  in  this  work  the  presence 
of  the  Master  is  promised,  "  Lo,  I  am  with  you  always, 
even  to  the  end  of  the  world." 

As  the  Head  of  the  church  provides  something  for  all 
these  ordinances,  as  his  part  of  prayer,  of  praise  and  of 
preaching,  and  in  each  requires  of  us  something  to  be 
done,  may  we  do  God's  part,  or  leave  ours  undone  ?  May 
we  interfere  with  his  prerogative,  reserved  to  himself  and 
delegated  to  none,  in  these  divine  ordinances?  May  we 
go  beyond  his  appointment  in  either  of  these  ?  If  he  has 
made  psalms,  hymns  and  spiritual  songs,  and  given  them 
to  us  to  be  sung ;  and  has  given  us  no  encouragement,  in 
any  form,  by  command  or  promise,  of  help,  to  do  what  he 
has  done,  viz. :  Make  songs  for  us  to  sing,  and  has  com- 
manded us  to  sing  them,  and  nothing  more,  what  is  our 
work,  evidently,  in  this  ordinance?  Since  we  are  here 
examining  analogies,  let  us  see  God's  part  in  prayer :  May 
we  reject  the  Spirit's  work  and  indite  our  own  prayers? 
May  Ave  reject  the  mediation  of  Christ,  and  ask  in  our  own 
name?  May  we,  instead  of  confining  ourselves  to  the 
promises,  ask  what  we  please  and  as  we  please? 

In  regard  to  the  observance  of  the  ordinance  of  praise, 
what  is  the  work  to  which  every  worshipper  is  called? 
What  is  the  material,  by  Divine  inspiration,  furnished  by 


34  PSALMODY.  -** 

the  Head  of  the  church  for  every  worshipper?  And  what 
is  the  aid  promised  to  every  worshipper  to  qualify  for  the 

proper  use  of  the  material  provided,  and  for  the  acceptable 
performance  of  the  duty  required/ 

With  these  questions  before  our  minds,  and  the  answers 
suggested  by  the  analogy  of  faith,  we  shall  be  better  pre- 
pared to  answer  some  others. 

Does  the  ordinance  of  praise  require,  or  even  contem- 
plate, the  composing,  penning,  making  of  songs,  the  ma- 
terial for  praise  either  for  ourselves,  for  others,  or  for  the 
use  of  the  church  ?  Is  every  worshipper  called  to  this 
work,  as  to  the  work  of  prayer,  so  that  to  omit  it  is  to  sin? 
Is  any  worshipper  so  commissioned  to  this  work?  Is  the 
church  collective,  in  her  courts,  called  to  this  work?  Has 
any  worshipper  a  i^'omise  of  aid  in  this  work,  as  in  prayer, 
and  as  in  a  work  to  which  he  is  called  f  Have  all  worship- 
pers such  promise?  Have  church  judicatories  such  prom- 
ise? How  is  it?  Does  any  one  single  promise,  directly 
or  indirectly,  expressly  or  impliedly,  secure  aid  and  en- 
couragement in  this  ivork? — In  making  songs  for  praise  as 
in  making  sermons  to  preach  ?  True,  there  may  be  some 
analogy,  or  parallelism  betwixt  the  text — the  inspired  word 
from  which  the  sermon  is  to  be  framed,  and  the  song  God 
made  and  gave  and  appointed  to  be  sung  to  his  praise. 
As  also,  a  parallelism  betwixt  the  preaching  of  the  sermon, 
which  is  the  preacher's  work,  and  the  singing  of  the  song, 
which  is  the  worshipper's  work  of  Divine  appointment. 
God  is  the  Author  of  both  Text  and  PscUm.  The  preacher 
and  worshipper,  by  the  help  of  God,  perform  both  the 
preaching  and  the  singing  as  their  appropriate  and  Di- 
vinely appointed  Work.      And   more — to   both   these  works 

there  is  a  call  imperatively  binding  on  the  called  to  per- 
form, each  his  work  ;  with  a  woe  also  on  all  who  fail  to 
meet  the  obligation.     For  both   these  works  there  is  need 


SCRIITURE    ELEMENTS   OF   PRAISE.  35 

of  aid  from  God ;  and  both  these  are  ordinary  duties  for 
which  God  furnishes  ordinary  qualifications.  For  both 
these  duties  aid  is  promised ;  aid  for  making  and  preach- 
ing sermons  ;  aid  for  singing  praise.  But,  no  aid  promised 
or  expected  by  any  one  for  making  a  text-book,  for  the 
Sacred  Canon  is  closed  and  all  inspiration  of  books  closed 
with  it,  and  all  work  for  which  inspiration  was  ever  given 
is  closed  also.  No  aid  is  either  promised  or  expected  for 
making  Hymn-Bdoks  more  than  any  other  books  scribblers 
may  choose  to  make;  inspiration  for  that  work  having 
been  closed,  and  that  work  withdrawn  from  the  church 
also.  Where  then,  the  analogies,  the  parallelism  ?  Where 
the  parallelism  for  warranting  the  challenge — "  If  we  may 
make  our  own  sermons,  may  we  not  make  our  own  psalms  ?  " 
That  there  is  promised  aid  to  the  ambassador  of  Christ 
in  the  preaching  of  the  gospel,  needs  no  further  argument. 
This  may  here  be  safely  assumed  as  conceded  by  all.  It 
remains  but  to  notice  the  fact  that,  in  regard  to  worship, 
all  promised  aid  is  for  the  ivork  of  singing,  none  for  the 
work  of  hymn-making.  Here  there  is  no  need  of  extended 
argument.  If  God  commands  his  people  to  do,  he  promises 
aid  for  that  work  required.  For,  "  who  goeth  a  warfare 
any  time  at  his  own  charges  ? "  1  Cor.  ix.  7.  "  And  as 
thy  days,  so  shall  thy  strength  be."  Deut.  xxxiii.  25. 
This  is  not  matter  of  debate.  Christ  furnishes  promised 
material  beyond  our  resources  for  every  work  to  which  he 
calls  us  ;  and  all  the  aid  needed  in  using  that  material.  Is 
it  not  strange  that — on  a  certain  assumed  hypothesis — there 
is  not  one  single  promise  to  aid  in  hymn-making,  nor  even 
a  remote  allusion  to  such  a  duty,  work  or  privilege  even, 
in  all  the  Bible  ?  Is  it  so  of  any  other  work,  duty,  calling, 
privilege  in  regard  to  the  worship  of  God?  The  conclu- 
sion is  forestalled.  Christ  calls  none,  authorizes  none, 
privileges  none  to  prepare  songs  for  the  use  of  praise  in 


36  PSALMODY. 

his  church.  This  was  a  work  equal  to  inspiration — equal 
to  a  God  ;  and  to  men  it  cannot  be  comely.  These  truths, 
next  to  self-evident,  none  will,  or  should  controvert.  In- 
deed, the  highest  assumption  of  any  opponent  known,  is 
that  psalm-making  is  a  mere  privilege — a  Christian  liberty 
in  which  any  poet  may  indulge.  And  this  whole  matter 
of  privilege  merely  inferential ;  and  that,  too,  in  the  mat- 
ter of  the  worship  of  God.  A  liberty  which  may  be  en- 
joyed at  will,  or  may  never  be  exercised.  A  liberty,  of 
course,  involving  no  one  enjoying  it  in  any  responsibility, 
duty  or  obligation  whatever.  A  Christian  liberty  and 
privilege  entirely  " sui  generis" — none  such  known  among 
all  the  Christian  privileges  guaranteed  to  fallen  sinners. 
Or,  if  this  conclusion  be  not  accepted — if  it  be  admitted 
that  privilege  does  involve  corresponding  obligation — then 
it  must  follow  that  every  one,  whose  Christian  privilege  it  is 
to  make  psalms  for  the  worship  of  God,  in  the  ordinance  of 
praise,  is  involved  in  the  obligation.  It  is  the  privilege  of 
every  minister  of  the  gospel  to  make  and  to  preach  sermons ; 
and  woe  to  that  privileged  minister  who  will  not  preach  the 
gospel.  It  is  the  privilege  of  every  Christian  to  oh 
the  ordinance  of  prayer,  secret,  social  and  public;  and 
woe  to  that  Christian  who  will  never  bow  the  knee  in 
])raycr  to  God.  It  is  the  Christian  privilege  of  every  one 
enjoying  divine  revelation,  and  divinely  prepared  songs, 
with  the  right  use  of  reason  and  his  senses,  to  sing  God's 
praise  in  his  worship ;  and  woe  to  that  privileged  sinner 
who  will  not  sing  psalms  in  the  praise  of  God,  and  so 
worship  him.  Then,  here  is  the  parallelism — the  making 
and  preaching  of  sermons  by  all  who  are  privileged  to 
preach;  and  the  singing  of  God's  praise  by  all  whose 
privilege  it  is  to  sing.  Bere  are  the  parallel  lines;  not 
the  making  of  sermons  and  making  of  psalms. 

Then,  tli<^  parallel  .-lands  thus — God  has  given  the  ser- 


SCRIPTURE   ELEMENTS   OF   PRALSE.  37 

mon-maker  an  inspired  text-book  out  of  which  to  make 
sermons.  He  has  also  given  the  church  a  book  of  inspired 
praises  to  be  used  for  praising  him ;  not  to  be  used  for 
making  a  book  of  praises.  He  has  commissioned  and 
commanded  the  preacher  to  make,  with  reading  and  study, 
and  preach  sermons  of  his  own  and  uninspired.  This  is 
his  work.  He  has  commanded  his  whole  church — he  has 
commanded  all  saints  and  sinners,  too,  to  sing  psalms  to 
his  praise  as  the  work  of  all.  Thus  we  find  the  analogies, 
the  parallels,  and  the  absence  of  them.  Who  ever  tested 
the  Book  of  Psalms — which  all  of  right  may  sing — by  the 
scriptures,  which  every  sinner  may  apply  as  the  test  of 
every  sermon  heard. 

Before  closing  this  chapter  on  parallelisms,  a  word 
farther  in  regard  to  the  essential  and  distinguishing  ele- 
ments of  the  divine  ordinances  of  prayer  and  praise — the 
false  assumptions  and  the  conclusions  therefrom  conse- 
quently false. 

Prayer  has,  for  its  very  first  creative  and  impulsive 
power,  the  inward  operations  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the 
originating  of  the  desires  of  the  heart.  As  in  regenera- 
tion, the  Spirit  creates  a  spiritual  being,  so  in  prayer,  He 
creates  spiritual  desires.  This  creation  of  spiritual  desires 
identifies  with  the  operations  of  the  Spirit  in  awakening 
into  active  exercise  the  graces  of  the  soul,  as  faith,  love, 
hope  ;  of  which  the  Spirit  is  the  Divine  Author.  Now, 
this  inward  impulsive  power  of  the  Spirit  shapes  and  con- 
trols, and  gives  direction  to  all  the  desires  of  the  heart, 
and  all  the  exercises  of  the  graces  without  the  interven- 
tion of  external  objects  addressing  the  mind  through  the 
external  senses.  We  have  no  need  for  the  use  of  the  eye 
in  prayer ;  we  close  it,  as  if  we  felt  its  use  hurtful  to  the 
exercise  of  the  inward  spiritual  graces  of  the  soul.  We, 
for  the  same  reason,  have  no  need  of  The  Book,  nor  of  its 
4 


oO  PSALMODY. 

word-signs  as  objects  of  sense  to  lead  the  mind,  and  choose 
for  it  the  matter  of  its  exercises.  If  ever  there  can  he 
need  for  the  n.se  of  The  Book,  in  prayer,  it  must  be  in 
social  prayer.  But  here  the  Spirit  alone  can  give  "  one 
accord  in  grayer  and  supplication"  This  "accord"  is  se- 
cured by  promise,  else  how  could  there  be  social  prayer 
acceptable  to  God  without  "  The  Prayer-Book?"  Pente- 
costal times  illustrate  the  nature  of  the  ordinance  of 
prayer,  and  the  promise  of  the  Spirit  in  giving  "one 
accord"  to  the  desires  of  many  hearts  in  social  prayer. 
And  just  here  Ave  see  the  fitness  of  previous  agreement  for 
concerted  prayer.     Matt,  xviii.  19. 

These  views  of  the  nature  of  prayer,  and  of  its  essential 
elements,  finding  no  parallel  in  the  nature  and  ordinance 
of  praise,  lay  a  solid  foundation  for  unanswerable  argu- 
ment against  "  The  Prayer-Booh."  For  prayer  and  the 
book  before  the  open  eye  are  about  as  congenial  as  "vine- 
gar upon  nitre" 

The  principle  in  praise  is  entirely  reversed ,  as  really  so 
as  the  locomotive  is  reversed  by  the  hand  of  the  engineer 
on  the  lever,  reversing  the  operations  of  the  motive  power, 
and  evolutions  of  the  entire  rotary  machinery  of  the 
engine.  The  mode  of  the  mental  and  spiritual  operations 
in  praise  is  changed.  The  mind  here,  with  all  its  intel- 
lectual and  active  powers,  is  controlled  by  outward  forms 
of  things  addressed  to  the  outward  senses,  the  eye  or  the 
ear,  and  through  these  to  the  understanding  and  the  heart. 
Here  the  eye,  The  Booh,  and  its  icord*  form  the  media  and 
essential  clement  of  praise.  Essential  to  social  praise; 
since  to  Bing  with  "one  accord "  God  has  ordained  and 
given   The  Book — i'^v  how  can  we  sing  without  it?    The 

very  first  mental  and  spiritual  0]  oration  in  the  mind  of 
the  worshipper  is  produced  with  the  sight  of  the  words  of 
the  song  stereotyped,  and   in  the  Book,  before  the  eye,  or 


SCRIPTURE   ELEMENTS   OF   PRAISE.  39 

read  out  from  the  book,  and  falling  upon  the  ear,  through 
sense  to  the  understanding,  and  then  to  the  heart;  not  as 
in  prayer,  which  has  its  beginning  in  the  heart,  where 
praise  ends.  In  praise,  words  in  the  Book  are  signs  of 
ideas.  Ideas  are  the  images  formed  in  the  mind  by  the 
words,  as  forms  or  types  reflecting  from  the  Psalm  its 
thoughts,  sentiments,  truths,  as  the  mind  of  the  Spirit, 
through  this  medium,  addressed  to  the  understanding  of 
the  worshipper.  In  singing  praise  the  mind  is  led,  in  all 
its  powers,  and  in  all  their  operations — not,  as  in  prayer, 
with  outward  senses  closed  to  all  objects  of  sense — but,  by 
tangible  and  visible  things,  acting  upon  the  mind  as  a 
mirror  throwing  back,  by  its  reflections,  the  images  of 
things,  from  without  into  the  soul.  The  soul,  in  its  exer- 
cise in  praise,  must  closely  follow  the  object  before  the  eye 
just  wherever  that  visible  moving  object  leads  the  eye — 
from  verse  to  verse,  from  line  to  line,  from  word  to  word, 
and  from  thought  to  thought  as  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord 
leads  by  the  ivords  of  the  song,  in  The  Book.  Here,  all  the 
feelings  of  the  heart  of  the  worshipper  must  be  in  corres- 
pondence with  the  icords  of  the  song,  in  the  book,  put  into 
the  mouth,  and  the  sentiments  of  the  song  indited  by  the 
Spirit  put  into  the  heart.  The  words  make,  or  frame,  the 
heart  with  which  we  praise.  In  prayer,  the  inspired  heart 
makes,  or  frames,  the  words  with  which  we  worship. 

Here,  indeed,  is  a  parallelism ;  but  not  where  our 
friends,  over  the  way,  desire  to  find  it.  It  is  here.  God's 
Spirit  of  inspiration  has  something  to  do  by  way  of  in- 
diting in  both  cases.  The  Holy  Spirit,  in  prayer,  indites 
the  thoughts  sent  from  the  heart  in  words.  These  icords 
must  be  subordinated  to  the  inward  inspiration  of  desires. 
The  same  Spirit,  in  praise,  indites  the  words  of  the  song, 
which  command  corresponding  thoughts  within,  formed  by 
the  images  of  the  thoughts  of  the  Spirit  in  the  inspired 


40  PSALMODY. 

words.  Images,  or  ideas,  in  the  heart  must  here  corres- 
pond to  their  forms  in  the  Book.  Instead,  therefore,  of 
making  our  own  prayers,  and  our  own  praises  as  well,  we 
neither  can  nor  may  make  either.  In  the  one  case  the 
Spirit  has,  by  inspiration,  made  abundantly.  In  the  other, 
the -Spirit  is  promised  to  make  by  inspiring  desires  as 
needed  for  use.  And  this  is  the  standing  office  and  work 
of  the  Spirit  in  the  church.  Then,  here  we  have  another 
parallelism  suggested,  not  suiting  our  friends,  however  : 
If  we  need  inspiration,  or  inditing  in  the  matter  of  prayer, 
why  not  in  praise? — and  with  all  the  difference  here  in 
our  favor;  for  prayers  amiss  are  temporary,  and  may  pass 
away,  but  hymns  amiss  are  repeated,  fixed  in  the  book, 
and  become  the  standing  error  of  the  church.  If  we  must 
worship  with  The  Book,  let  it  be  inspired. 

Another  view  of  our  friend's  parallels — If  making  and 
using  psalms,  prayers  and  sermons,  as  assumed,  proceed  on 
the  same  principle,  and  on  the  same  form  of  authority ; 
since  the  command  to  sing,  to  pray,  to  preach  implies  to 
make  sermons,  prayers  and  psalms  ;  then,  we  are  to  make 
prayers  and  psalms  impromptu  and  extempore  alike,  and 
without  the  Book,  as  our  friends  tell  us  psalms  were  made 
and  used,  Luke  xix.  38,  and  Acts  iv.  24.  This  proves  too 
much.  Our  friends  will  make,  with  pen,  the  hymns  they 
use,  and  book  them.  Yet  they  "fight  against  the  Prayer' 
Book."  Why  ?  Sure,  Holy  Mother  books  both  !  Which 
is  right?     Or  do  parallels  diverge  sometimes? 

Again  :  If  the  command  to  sing  implies  authority  to 
make  the  psalms,  and  to  prepare  a  written  manual  for 
Standing  use  in  praise,  as  is  done  upon  this  same  assumed 
authority,  just  as  the  command  to  preach  implies  authority 
to  make  sermons,  then  this  will  follow:  If  we  may  make 
and  use  a  written  Hymn-Hook,  we  may  make  and  use  a 
written  Prayer-Book,  we  may  make  and  use  a  written  Ser- 


SCRIPTURE   ELEMENTS   OF   PRAISE.  41 

mon-Book.  Then,  like  Rome  and  England,  we  may  sing 
from  the  Book,  pray  from  the  Book,  and  preach  from  the 
Book.  Perhaps  Mass  as  well.  Things  equal  to  the  same, 
are  equal  to  one  another.  If  praise  be  equal  to  preaching 
and  prayer,  then  preaching  and  prayer  are  equal  to  praise. 
So  Rome  books  them  all.     And  Roman  logic  is  right ! 

Once  more  :  Each  of  these  ordinances,  as  regards  their 
administrators,  has,  in  addition  to  the  command  and  com- 
mission, specific  instructions  for  fulfilling  the  commission, 
and  obeying  the  command.  And  just  here  is  where  our 
brethren  stumble  and  miss  their  way ;  for  just  here  lies  all 
the  world  of  difference.  In  each  case  we  have  first,  the 
commission  and"  command  for  the  work.  Then,  to  each  is 
added  specific  instructions  suited  to  the  peculiar  work. 
For  each  work  the  man  of  God  is  furnished  and  perfected 
by  his  special  instructions.  These  instructions  differ  just 
as  the  nature  and  duties  and  work  of  these  ordinances 
differ.  The  instructions  of  the  one  differ  from  the  other,  as 
the  instructions  of  a  Minister  to  one  Foreign  Court  may  dif- 
fer from  the  instructions  of  a  Consular  Agent  to  some  other. 

These  specific  instructions  are  all,  more  or  less,  as  the 
nature  of  the  work  requires,  exemplified  by  Christ,  his 
Apostles,  Prophets,  etc.  From  instructions  exemplified  we 
easily  prove  that  these  three  ordinances  are  not  parallel. 
Each  so  differs  from  the  others,  as  to  prove  that  Psalms 
must  be  written  and  booked,  and  that  the  others  must  not 
be.  They  prove  that  Psalms  are  inspired  and  given  in 
the  Book.  They  prove  that  prayer  is  inspired,  but*given 
in  the  heart,  and  may  be  unutterable.  They  prove  that 
sermons  are  not  inspired,  either  fop  heart  or  book  ;  but  un- 
inspired and  extempore.  Such  are  implied  in  the  exem- 
plified instructions  for  the  scriptural  administrations  of 
these  ordinances.  Let  these  instructions  be  all  carefully 
studied,  as  they  must  be  before  this  question  will  be  settled. 
4* 


42  PSALMODY. 

We  ask  a  hasty  glance,  only,  at  these  very  instructive 
instructions. 

First,  Instructions  given  to  all  commissioned  to  admin- 
ister these  ordinances.  For  preparing  and  preaching  ser- 
mons they  are  ample.  "Give  attendance  to  reading." 
"Meditate  upon  these  things."  "Shun  not  to  declare  all 
the  counsel  of  God."  "A  workman  that  needeth  not  to  be 
ashamed,  rightly  dividing  the  word  of  truth."  "Strive 
not  about  words."  "Shun  babblings."  "Avoid  unlearned 
questions."  "  In  meekness  instructing  those  that  oppose 
themselves."  No  end  here — Details  are  so  ample  and  so 
specific,  chapters  might  be  written  without  repeating  speci- 
fications in  the  bill  of  instructions,  as  found  in  the  Bible. 
All  this,  too,  suggestive  of  the  fact  of  the  weakness  and 
fallibility  of  those  bearing  the  commission;  and,  conse- 
quently, the  propriety  of  bringing  all  their  administrations 
to  the  standard.  The  treasure  is  committed  to  earthen 
vessels — men  of  like  passions — men  who,  from  the  best 
specimens  of  their  class,  give  evidence  of  the  need  of  in- 
structions, and  of  authorized  test  of  their  ministrations. 
Peter  was  withstood  to  the  face,  because  he  was  to  be 
blamed.  Paul  and  Barnabas  fell  out  by  the  way ;  and 
when  not  inspired,  it  was  possible  for  them  to  err. 

So  of  prayer.  In  how  many  forms  are  we  cautioned  of 
the  danger  of  praying  amiss?  Here,  too,  space  forbids 
ex  tended  specifications.  How  significant  this  prayer — « 
"Lord,  teach  us  to  pray."  Christ  did  teach  how  to  pray. 
He  has  given  examples  both  for  warning  and  for  instruc- 
tion. The  Pharisee's  prayer.  The  long  prayers  of  this 
sect.  The  prayer  of  the  mother  of  Zebedee's  children. 
Then  the  publican's  prayer.  The  prayer  of  the  thief  on 
the  cross.  The  importunate  widow.  Jacob's  wrestling. 
Put  where  end,  with  instructions  for  the  ordinance  of 
prayer?     Then  again — J  low  to  know  that  our  prayers  arc 


SCRIPTURE   ELEMENTS   OF   PRAISE.  43 

of  the  Spirit's  inditing.  Here,  too,  are  Bible  instructions 
for  testing.  The  will  of  God  revealed,  according  to  which 
the  Spirit  implants  desires  in  the  heart. 

Secondly,  A  glance,  as  we  pass,  at  the  ample  instruc- 
tions to  hearers,  for  the  testing  of  sermons  and  prayers. 
If  the  Divine  instructions  to  hearers  required  implicit 
faith  and  obedience  in  everything  preached — if  there  was 
not  a  single  hint  that  sermons  might  be  questioned  or  chal- 
lenged, might  not  this  silence  be  suggestive,  at  least,  of  an 
inference  that  they  might  be  inspired  ;  or,  like  papal  bulls, 
be  received  as  infallible  ?  Far  otherwise  are  all  the  facts 
here.  Every  line  of  instruction  to  the  people  suggests  the 
fallibility  of  every  preacher,  and  of  every  sermon.  Bear 
with  us  a  little  here,  in  reviewing  the  copious  and  specific 
instructions  given — the  masses  need  them. 

"  Take  heed  how  ye  hear,"  calls  up,  in  the  very  preface 
to  instructions,  the  idea,  not  only  of  subjective  scrutiny, 
but  objective,  as  well,  in  regard  to  the  sermons  heard. 
"  Search  the  scriptures,"  not  only  for  eternal  life,  but  to 
become  skilled  Bereans,  not  easily  carried  away  by  winds 
of  doctrine.  "  Try  the  spirits,"  because  the  spirits  of  the 
prophets  may  not  be  subject  to  the  prophets,  as  they  ought, 
and,  therefore,  their  sermons  found  wanting.  Thus  we 
might  proceed,  and  fill  pages  with  references  of  this  kind. 
There  is  still  a  more  distinct  and  impressive  form  of  in- 
structions— 

Thirdly,  Commended  example.  The  Bereans  "  were 
more  noble,  in  that  they  received  the  word  with  all 
readiness  of  mind,  and  searched  the  scriptures  daily,  ichether 
those  things  ivcre  so."  These  noble  Bereans,  applying  the 
instructions  for  hearing,  as  in  duty  bound,  searched  the 
scriptures  daily  to  know  whether  the  sermons,  preached  by 
the  inspired  Paul  and  his  companion  Silas,  were  in  accord- 
ance with  the  only  infallible  rule  by  which  all  sermons 


44  PSALMODY. 

should  be  tried  by  every  hearer.  These  Bereans  never 
tested,  by  the  rule,  the  inspired  epistles  of  the  man  whose 

Bermons  were  put  to  such  rigid  scrutiny.  Nor  were  they 
ever  known  to  have  thus  tested  their  hymnology. 

The  whole  Bible  is  full  of  instructions  to  hearers  of  ser- 
mons, all  demonstrating  that  the  character  of  the  essential 
elements  of  the  ordinance  of  preaching  presents  almost  a 
contrast  to  the  character  of  the  matter  of  praise  as  recog- 
nized in  the  specific  instructions  in  regard  to  this  ordi- 
nance. Of  the  ordinance  of  prayer,  the  same  things  are 
substantially  true  as  of  preaching.  Prayer  may  be  amiss. 
Of  such,  example  is  not  wanting.  We  have  much  instruc- 
tion in  regard  to  true  prayer,  and  many  examples  illus- 
trating the  character  of  the  prayer  God  hears.  AVe  have 
abundant  instructions  how  to  pray,  and  how  to  know 
whether  our  prayers  have  the  Spirit  for  their  Author. 
Chapters  might  be  written  on  the  subject  of  instructions 
for  testing  sermons  and  prayers,  O,  how  fallible  must  our 
sermons  be  at  best!  And,  O,  how  much  our  very  tears 
and  prayers  need  washing!  Plow  much  does  that  man 
know  of  the  evil  of  sin  ;  of  the  depth  of  human  depravity  ; 
of  the  deceitfulness  of  the  heart ;  of  our  proneness  to 
err,  who  cannot  see  the  need  of  instructions  how  to  make 
and  to  try  sermons  and  prayers,  on  the  ground  that  they 
may  be  poor,  feeble,  erring,  deluding,  dangerous  things? 

Fourthly,  Here  the  inquiry  is  forced  upon  us — How  of 
praise?  Plave  wre  instructions  here?  For  what?  To 
what  confined?  Ps  everything  plain  here?  Is  everything 
just  parallel  to  the  instructions  in  regard  to  preaching  and 
prayer t  Ample  instructions  for  singing — what  to  ring, 
and  how  to  sing.  All  just  as  plain  as  in  the  matter  of 
making  sermons,  preaching  them,  hearing  them,  testing 
them  by  the  rule.  We  are  instructed  to  sing  psalms, 
hymns,  songs,  just  as  we  are  instructed  to  read  and  search 


SCRIPTURE   ELEMENTS   OF   PRAISE.  45 

the  scriptures.  We  are  instructed  to  sing  with  the  voice. 
We  are  instructed  to  sing  with  the  understanding,  which 
implies  the  use  of  means  to  know  the  meaning  of  the  mat- 
ter we  sing — perhaps  by  our  own  prayerful  study,  and  with 
the  help  of  the  ministry.  We  are  instructed  to  sing  with 
the  heart,  and  to  make  melody  in  the  heart  to  the  Lord. 
How  ample  the  instructions  in  regard  to  singing  ! — ample, 
as  to  preaching  or  to  prayer.  He  that  runs  may  read. 
And  why  all  this  specific  instruction  in  regard  to  preach- 
ing, praying  and  singing?  These  are  cardinal  ordinances. 
God  is  jealous  of  his  own  institutions,  and  of  his  worship. 
Another  inference  irresistible — sermons,  prayer  and  singing 
may  be  amiss,  and,  therefore,  the  line  upon  line  and  the 
precept  upon  precept  here. 

Besides  this,  a  fifth  fact  is  suggested  here  in  connection 
with  the  questions  above :  In  addition  to  the  total  want  of 
instruction  for  making  and  preparing  matter  of  praise,  there 
is  neither  command  to  make  psalms  for  praise,  nor  promise 
of  grace,  or  aid,  in  any  form,  for  such  work,  nor  the  shadow 
of  either  available  on  the  part  of  any  man,  of  any  church, 
of  any  supreme  judicatory. 

These  facts  and  inquiries  force  upon  the  mind  correspond- 
ing and  logical  conclusions — conclusions  from  which  there 
is  no  evasion.  They  do  shut  us  up  to  one  or  the  other  of 
the  following :  either, 

1.  It  matters  not  ichat  we  make  for  praise  in  the  worship 
of  God,  or  what  we  sing ;  for,  in  the  absence  of  all  instruc- 
tions in  regard  to  the  matter,  or  making  of  song,  we  are 
without  law,  and  cannot  transgress.  "Where  there  is  no 
law  there  is  no  transgression/'  It  is  the  same  to  God  what 
psalms,  hymns  and  spiritual  songs  we  sing,  and  a  matter 
of  indifference  who  made  them.  This  deduction  lies  neces- 
sarily at  the  foundation  of  the  system  of  all  uninspired 
hymn-making    and    singing    in    the   formal  worship   of 


46  PSALMODY. 

God.  This  is  essential  to  the  New  Testament  Christian 
liberty  claimed — a  liberty  to  make  and  sing,  according  to 
our  creed  and  conscience,  in  the  absence  of  all  restrictions. 
The  practice  of  the  churches,  and  their  defenders  confirm 
this  conclusion.  For,  if  the  churches  may  make  their 
hymnology  a  part  and  form  of  their  creed,  then  it  is  in 
their  own  hands  to  be  shaped  according  to  their  respective 
faith  and  taste.  The  hymns  of  the  Calvin ist,  the  Arme- 
nian, the  Arian,  the  Universalist,  the  Catholic,  the  Mor- 
mon— all  alike  to  God — for,  he  permits  all  to  make  and 
sing  what  they  please,  without  shadow  of  condition  or  re- 
striction ;  if  heart  be  right  and  music  good,  God  is  satis- 
fied, and  man  is  pleased. 

That  our  brethren  choose  this  horn  of  the  dilemma,  and 
boldly  face  the  consequences,  is  proved  by  their  own 
church  deliverances,  and  the  endorsed  vindications  of  their 
doctrine  and  practice  on  the  subject  of  psalmody.  They 
can  consistently  sing  what  they  denounce  as  gross  error — 
and  they  do.     Proof — 

They  have  denounced  the  Scottish  version  of  the  Book 
of  Psalms,  as  teaching,  "very  serious  doctrinal  and  his- 
torical errors ;"  as  teaching  "gross  errors;"  as  teaching 
what  "  leads  directly  to  the  error  of  sinless  perfection ; " 
as  teaching  what  "  utterly  subverts  the  doctrine  of  atone- 
ment, by  representing  the  blessed  Saviour  as  a  forced  vic- 
tim to  Divine  justice ;  "  as  teaching  the  doctrine,  "  that  the 
soul  goes  down  into  the  grave  with  the  body  ;"  as  teaching 
"  that  the  human  soul  of  our  blessed  Lord  wTas  thus  buried 
witli  his  body." 

And,  yet,  the  version  of  the  Psalms  so  charged,  and  the 
charges  endorsed  by  Doctors  of  Divinity,  by  Theological 
Professors,  by  ecclesiastical  bodies,  venerable  Synods,  etc., 
has  the  sanction  of  the  supreme  judicatory — is  sung  in 
many,  and   may  be  lawfully  sung  in  all  of  their  churches. 


SCRIPTURE   ELEMENTS   OF   PRAISE.  47 

They  choose  the  position  that  it  is  Christian  liberty  to 
sing  whatever  supreme  judicatory  may  please  to  sanction, 
truth  or  error.  So  they  have  done,  so  they  still  do.  It  is 
not  essential  that  their  hymns  be  evangelical.  If  their 
hearts  be  right,  the  words  matter  little.  And  if  the  heart 
be  bad,  as  the  Arians',  it  alters  not,  materially,  the  matter 
to  sing  a  Bible  Psalm. 

Why  might  we  not  as  well  dispense  with  word  singing 
altogether?  Why  not  just  sing  with  sound  unmeaning? — 
and  with  heart  warmed  by  sound  of  music  inspiring?  Is 
it  not  moving  that  way  fast  enough?  Perhaps,  just  held 
in  check  enough  to  save  from  shattering  the  machinery 
organic.  If  this  first  conclusion,  with  what  logically  fol- 
lows, be  inadmissible,  there  is  one  other. 

2.  God,  himself,  having  amply  provided,  by  infallible 
inspiration,  Psalms,  Hymns  and  Spiritual  Songs,  to  his 
own  mind  and  after  his  own  heart,  has  made  no  provision 
for  any  other.  These  need  no  instruction  for  testing,  and 
consequently  have  none.  Therefore,  all  this  silence  here — 
no  command  to  make — no  instructions  for  making — no  in- 
structions for  examining — no  promise  or  encouragement  in 
regard  to  any  such  work — demands,  if  the  first  conclusion 
be  ejected,  the  acceptance  of  the  second.  Will  our  friends 
suggest  any  other  possible?  If  they  cannot,  and  the  di- 
lemma has  but  two  horns,  which  will  they  choose  ? 

And  now,  in  concluding  this  chapter,  may  we  make  our 
own  psalms,  as  we  make  and  preach  our  own  sermons  ?  If 
we  perch  upon  the  first  horn,  certainly.  If  on  the  second, 
we  shall  cling  to  the  songs  of  the  Bible.  To  God,  the 
Judge,  we  leave  the  rest. 


CHAPTER  III. 

REVIEW  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  UNINSPIRED  PRAYER, 
PRAISE  AND  PREACHING,  AND  THEIR  ASSUMED  PARAL- 
LELISM. 

Review  of  a  reviewer — Inspired  and  uninspired  men  placed  in  the  same 
category — Divine  inspiration  and  poetic  genius  in  the  same  category — 
Authority  of  Divine  inspiration  weakened — Illogical  compar^ons — 
Mistranslations,  paraphrases,  etc.,  examined — Fallacy  exposed — Ab- 
surd claims  of  Church  prerogative — The  Church  passing  on  translations, 
or  versions,  not  analogous  to  passing  on  Hymn-Books. 

A  VERY  confident  writer,  whose  issue  is  perhaps  the 
latest  on  this  subject,  1866,  writes  thus:  "The  Re- 
viewer proposes  a  false  issue,  when  he  asks,  '  Where  has 
God  authorized  any  uninspired  man  to  prepare  songs  of 
praise  for  the  church  V  Presbyterians  answer,  nowhere ! 
Our  doctrine  is,  that  individuals  may  employ  the  noble 
poetical  talents,  with  which  the  'Author  of  every  good 
and  perfect  gift/  has  endowed  them  in  composing  hymns, 
agreeably  to  the  example  in  Acts  iv.  24,  of  a  song  of  praise 
gathered  partly  from  Ps.  2,  and  partly  from  other  portions 
of  the  sacred  records.  But  'to  prepare  these  Psalms  for 
the  church/  is  not  the  prerogative  nor  the  privilege  of 
1  any  uninspired  man/  which  Dr.  P —  insinuates  to  be  the 
Presbyterian  doctrine.  This  is  the  province  of  the  church 
herself,  as  represented  by  her  supreme  judicatory.  She 
examines,  and,  where  found  needful,  amends  these  produc- 
tions, and  then  issues  her  sanction  to  their  adoption  in 
public  worship,  just  as  the  Scottish  General  Assembly 
sanctioned  Rouse.  But,  replies  Dr.  P — /There  is  no 
48 


UNINSPIRED    PRAYER,    PRAISE    AND    PREACHING.       49 

promise  of  the  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  assist  any 
mom  id  preparing  these  Psalms.'  But,  are  there  not  pre- 
cious and  abundant  promises  to  the  church  of  Christ, 
that  the  presence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  shall  be  with  her  in 
her  public  councils?  Has  he  not  promised  to  be  with  her 
'  to  the  end  of  the  world  V  And  have  we  not  at  least  as 
good  grounds  to  hope  for  this  gracious  presence  with  the 
collective  '  body  of  Christ,'  when  the  church  is  amending 
and  authorizing  these  songs  of  praise,  as  when  uninspired 
men  are  explaining  Rouse  to  their  congregations,  and 
putting  into  their  hearts  the  sentiments  which  they  shall 
feel  when  uttering  the  language  of  the  paraphrase?"  Pp. 
132,133. 

Our  apology  for  making  this  long  quotation,  is  that  it 
contains,  in  a  nut-shell  scope,  the  sum  of  volumes  of  this 
same  kind  of"  darkening  counsel  by  words  without  knowl- 
edge ;"  and  we  avail  ourselves  of  its  comprehension.  It 
presents  one  of  the  strong  pillars  reared  for  the  sustaining 
of  the  whole  fabric  of  a  human  psalmody ;  if  this  falls,  no 
other  prop  can  sustain  it.  This  specimen  of  forcing  con- 
clusions from  premises  where  there  is  no  logical  relation, 
or  analogy,  so  strikingly  exemplifies  the  whole  course  of 
argument  for  uninspired  hymns  and  prayers,  we  wish  to 
have  it  before  us,  and  before  the  eye  of  the  reader,  so  as  to 
see  at  once  the  full  strength  of  the  opponent.  Let  us  then, 
carefully  look  at  some  of  the  main  points  of  argument  sup 
posed  to  be  in  the  quotation  before  us. 

FIRST,  INSPIRED  AND  UNINSPIRED  MEN  ARE  PLACED  IN  THE 
SAME  CATEGORY,    IN    OFFICIAL    CALLING   AND    WORK. 

It  is  distinctly  conceded,  in  the  quotation  above,  that 
"Nowhere,  has  God  authorized  any  uninspired  wan  to 
prepare  songs  of  praise  for  the  church."  Now,  ibis  is  very 
well  because  it  is  true.     But  has  it  any  kin  to  the  next 


50  PSALMODY. 

statement?  "Our  doctrine  is  that  individuals  may  em- 
ploy the  aoble  poetical  talents  with  which  the  'Author  of 
every  good  and  perfect  gift' has  endowed  them" — unin- 
spired men  here  of  course — "in  composing  hymns, -agreea- 
bly to  the  example  in  Acts  iv.  24,  of  a  song  of  praise 
gathered  partly  from  Ps.  2,  and  partly  from  other  por- 
tions of  the  sacred  records."  That  is,  what  Luke  did,  Acts 
iv.  24,  the  Christian  poet  may  do.  But  Luke  composed  a 
hymn  just  as  any  Christian  poet  may.  And  as  Luke  did 
no  more,  and  no  less,  than  other  inspired  writers  of  songs, 
so  every  Christian  poet  may  do,  what  any  inspired  poet 
did  in  writing  the  inspired  songs  of  the  Bible.  What 
David,  Asaph,  Ezra,  Luke  did  in  composing  and  penning 
Bongs  inspired,  and  recorded  in  the  Bible,  the  uninspired 
Christian  poet  may  do.  Whatever  we  may  justly  claim 
for  our  divinely  inspired  poets  in  the  matter  of  composing 
praise  to  be  sung  in  the  worship  of  God,  the  Christian 
poet,  uninspired,  may  claim.  Inspired  men  have  quoted, 
expounded  and  applied  the  Book  of  Psalms;  and  have 
"gathered  from  other  portions  of  the  sacred  record ;"  they 
have  expounded  and  applied  these  gatherings;  they  have 
incorporated  these  gatherings  and  expositions  with  the 
other  canonical  books,  all  by  the  unquestioned  authority 
of  the  head  of  the  church,  and  by  the  infallible  inspiration 
of  the  Holy  Spirit.  To  this  very  work  they  were  divinely 
called;  for  this  work  they  were  divinely  qualified  ;  in  this 
work  they  were  divinely  and  infallibly  guided.  To  do 
this  work,  to  which  called,  was  not  only  their  Christian 
privilege  and  liberty,  but  their  incumbent  and  imperative 
duty,  about  which  they  could  have  no  choice,  and  from 
which  they  could  not,  on  peril  of  condensation  shrink. 
Such    was   the   official  work,  to  which    Luke  was   called    in 

penning  Acts  iv.  24.  And  so  of  all  the  inspired  writers 
of  song,  whose  penmanship  is  found  in  the  Bible.     Now, 


UNINSPIRED    TRAYER,   PRAISE   AND   PREACHING.      51 

what  is  the  claim  made  for  the  uninspired,  but  otherwise 
gifted,  Christian  poets?  Let  us,  from  the  same  author, 
see: — 

"Presbyterians  plead  for  the  use  of  the  songs  of  inspira- 
tion, just  as  the  Apostles  used  them.   For  example,  There 

IS  NOT  A  SOLITARY  INSTANCE  IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  OF 
THE    SINGING    OF    THE    PSALMS    OF    DAVID  IN    A    LITERAL 

form.  On  the  contrary,  the  Apostles  used  the  Book  of 
Psalms  in  quite  a  different  mode,  in  the  only  two  cases  in 
which  they  employed  them  in  social  praise.  One  of  these 
is  Luke  xix.  38.  The  disciples  took  part  of  a  verse  from 
Ps.  cxviii.,  but  sung  it  with  alterations  adapted  to  their 
circumstances.  The  second  case  is  in  Acts  iv.  24.  The 
beginning  of  second  Psalm  is  sung  by  Peter,  John,  and 
their  company,  then  an  addition,  in  the  beginning,  then  a 
narrative  of  what  David  spoke,  then  an  application  to 
Herod,  Pontius  Pilate,  etc.,  then  an  enlargement  by  con- 
sidering the  hand  of  God  in  the  whole,  and  finally  the 
song  concludes  with  desires  suited  to  their  circumstances. 
This  is  an  inspired  pattern  for  making  new  Testament 
Psalms.  It  groups  together  parts  of  the  Psalms  along 
with  other  inspired  matter,  just  as  Dr.  Watts  and  Presby- 
terians do."     Pp.  79,  80. 

Is  it  not  true  in  logic,  as  in  philosophy,  that,  "things 
equal  to  the  same  are  equal  to  one  another."  "  Dr. 
AVatts  and  Presbyterians," — that  is,  the  uninspired  poets — 
"  have  no  authority  to  prepare  songs  of  praise  for  the 
church."  "  It  is  the  province  of  the  church  herself  as 
represented  by  the  supreme  judicatory."  Yes,  and  "  to 
examine,  and,  where  found  needful,  amend  these  productions, 
and  then  issue  her  sanction  to  their  adoption  in  public 
worship."  But  the  authority  of  Luke'being  equal— jud  as 
Dr.  AVatts,  etc." — to  the  authority  of  poets;  and  the 
authority  of  the  poets  equal  to  the  authority  of  Luke,  in 


52  P&ALMODY. 

composing  Acts   iv.  24,  and  Luke  xix.  38,   consequently 
neither  the  productions  of  the  poets,  nor  the  compositions 

of  Luke  the  physician,  are  authorized  to  be  sung  till  the 
supreme  judicatory  of  the  church  "issues  her  sanction  for 
their  adoption  in  public  worship,  just  as  the  Scottish  Gen- 
eral  Assembly  sanctioned  Rouse."  This  placing  in  the 
same  category  the  poetic  works  of  Luke,  and  the  other  in- 
spired poets,  is  about  as  logical  as  the  Jew  plowing  with 
an  ox  and  an  ass.  The  inspired  Luke  and  other  in 
Psalm-makers,  might  demur  here  against  this  unequal 
yoking  with  uninspired  scribblers.  The  animals  are  not 
just  alike.  Nor  are  the  products  of  their  pens  just  alike. 
But  it  is  some  relief  to  the  uninspired  poets  and  to  the 
argument  of  the  quotation — whether  to  Luke  and  the 
other  inspired  poets  we  say  not — that  the  church  preroga- 
tive conies  in  with  its  interposition.  The  "  supreme  judica- 
tory" can  clothe  the  ass  with  an  ox-hide! 

Seriously — can  that  course  be  a  good  one,  and  its  de- 
fence scriptural,  that  requires  the  calling,  the  authority, 
the  place,  the  w7ork  of  an  inspired  writer  to  be  placed  in 
the  same  category  with  the  work  of  uninspired  poets? 
The  work  of  inspired  poets  of  no  more  authority  than  the 
productions  of  uninspired  men?  And  do  the  inspired 
Bongs  of  the  Bible  stand  in  the  same  relation,  of  authority, 
to  the  church,  to  her  judicatories,  etc.,  and  to  all  her  wor- 
shippers, that  the  poetical  compositions  of  the  poets  do, 
having  no  authority  to  be  sung,  till  authorized  by  the 
supreme  judicatory  of  the  church?  God  inspired  holy 
men  to  write  songs  of  praise,  to  place  those  songs  in  the 
Bible,  as  a  part  of  the  sacred  canon,  as  God's  word  :  yet 
they  were  not  "prepared  for  the  church,"  since  "this  is 
the  province  of  the  church  herself,  as  represented  by  her 
Bupreme  judicatory."  She  examines,  amends,  sanctions 
their   adoption    in    public   worship."     "This   is   an   an   in- 


UNINSPIRED    PRAYER,    PRAISE   AND   PREACHING.      53 

spired  pattern  for  making  New  Testament  Psalms.  It 
groups  together  parts  of  the  Psalms  along  with  other  in- 
sjnred  matter  just  as  Dr.  Watts  and  Presbyterians  do." 
Luke  and  Watts  "  employ  the  noble  poetical  talents  with 
which  the 'Author  of  every  good  and  perfect  gift'  has 
endowed  them  in  composing  hymns,  as  Luke  in  Acts  iv. 
24."  After  examination — amendment — ("if  needed!") 
sanction  by  the  church,  Luke  and  Watts  might  use  one 
another  in  public  worship  !  A  curious  query  springs  upon 
us  here.  Did  Luke  sing  Acts  iv.  24,  in  worship  before 
his  composition  passed  the  "  supreme  judicatory  of  the 
church?"— "just  as  Dr.  Watts  T  Did  David,  Asaph, 
Isaiah,  Luke,  and  with  them  the  church,  sing  their  in- 
spired songs,  with  or  without,  the  sanction  of  the  "  supreme 
judicatory  of  the  church,"  or,  by  the  simple  authority  of 
God  to  sing  them  ?  Let  us  hear  what  our  author  «ays  in 
answer  to  this  question :  Pie  can  argue  either  side — Hear 
the  other  : 

"  It  is  a  plain  dictate  of  common  sense,  that  to  versify 
such  passages  of  the  other  scriptures,  as  Isa.  xii.  is  no  more 
'to  make  songs  of  praise '  than  to  versify  the  one  hundred 
and  fifty  Psalms  after  the  manner  of  Rouse.  Such 
sublime  and  beautiful  portions  of  the  sacred  records  are 
songs  of  praise  already  made,  and  whether  they  be  found 
in  the  New  or  the  Old  Testament,  they  are  admirably 
suited  to  the  worship  of  God.  But  is  it  lawful  to  use  them 
in  praising  God?  What  says  the  Ploly  Ghost  by  the 
-writers  of  many  of  those  passages  ?  '  Sing  unto  the  Lord' — 
'  In  that  day  (gospel  day)  shall  this  song  be  sung' — '  Sing 
unto  the  Lord  a  new  song.'  (Isa.  xlii.  10) — But  Ave 
think  the  authority  of  Isaiah  is  quite  sufficient  if  there 
were  no  other."     Pp.  140, 141.  ■ 

And  now,  will  this  author,  or  any  one  else  plead  that — ■ 
like  Watt's,  or  other  uninspired  poets'  productions — "The 
5* 


54  PSALMODY. 

song  of  Miriam,  of  Moses,  of  Deborah,  of  Barak,  of  David, 
of  Asaph,  of  Isaiah,  of  Luke,  of  Peter,  John  and  their 
company,"  are  not  "  already  made,"  or  prepared  for  "wor- 
ship, but  must  pass  the  examination  and  sanction  of 
"supreme  judicatory?  The  authority  of  inspired  and 
uninspired  poets  to  prepare  praise  for  the  use  of  the  church 
in  the  worship  of  God,  is  just  as  unlike  as  authority  and  no 
authority.  The  authority  of  inspired  poets,  and  the  au- 
thority of  supreme  church  judicatory,  in  the  business  of 
preparing  songs  of  praise,  for  the  use  of  the  church,  in  the 
worship  of  God,  are  just  as  unlike  as  authority  and  no  au- 
thority." "The  authority  of  Isaiah" — and  all  other  in- 
spired poets — "is  quite  sufficient."  The  authority  of  the 
Bible  overrides  all  other  authority:  "supreme  judicatory" 
to  the  contrary,  notwithstanding.  Has  the  author  before 
us  written  "common  sense?"  himself  being  judge.     P.  140. 

SECONDLY. — OUR  AUTII0R  PLANS  DIVINE  INSPIRATION  AND 
POETICAL    GENIUS    IN    THE    SAME    CATEGORY. 

One  would  think,  at  the  very  first  glance,  that  to  place 
in  the  same  category,  Divine  inspiration,  a  supernatural 
gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  poetical  genius,  a  merely  natu- 
ral and  ordinary  gift,  is  blunder  enough  in  the  commence- 
ment of  a  course  of  argument  to  condemn  the  whole  pro- 
cess, without  any  reference  to  the  conclusion.  But  this  is 
the  very  thing  we  have  for  argument  in  the  quotation 
before  us.  This  is  the  very  assumption  of  the  premises  on 
which  the  logical  argument  is  built.  "Individuals  may 
employ  their  noble  poetical  talents,  in  composing  hymns,  as 
Luke  employed  his  gift  of  inspiration  in. composing  Acts 
iv.  24." 

Now,  we  admit,  "individuals  may  employ  their  noble 
poetical  talents,1'  in  composing  as  many  gospel  Bonnets  as 
they  please;  but  this  "  may" — this  if  they  please,  utterly 


UNINSPIRED    PRAYER,    PRAISE   AND   PREACHING.      55 

fails  to  be  like  Luke's  position.  Look  at  it.  Luke  in- 
spired, "may"  write  Acts  iv.  24.  Luke  "may  employ"  his 
gift  of  inspiration  in  composing  and  writing  down,  as 
moved  by  the  Spirit,  Acts  iv.  24.  Luke  might  have  chosen 
not  to  employ  his  gift,  not  to  exercise  his  Christian  privilege, 
just  as  many  gifted  Christian  poets,  free  to  exercise  their 
Christian  liberty,  yet  choose  not  to  do  so!  "Poets,  en- 
dowed by  the  '  Author  of  every  good  and  perfect  gift/ 
may,  in  composing  hymns,  gather  from  the  Psalms,  and 
from  other  portions  of  the  sacred  records,  agreeably  to  the 
example  of  Luke,  who  gathered  and  composed,  in  the  em- 
ployment of  his  good  and  perfect  gift  of  inspiration,  a 
song  from  Ps.  ii.  and  from  other  portions  of  the  sacred 
records. "  Luke,  by  inspiration,  gathering  from  many 
portions  of  the  Bible,  composed  a  song  of  praise,  which 
the  church  might  sing  in  her  public  worship,  so  soon  as 
her  supreme  judicatory  should  issue  her  sanction!  Had 
Luke  chosen  not  to  exercise  his  Christian  privilege,  not  to 
employ  his  gift  of  inspiration  in  gathering  the  material 
and  composing  that  excellent  Psalm,  Acts  iv.  24;  or  had 
the  supreme  judicatory  withheld  her  sanction,  neither 
Peter,  John,  their  company,  nor  Luke  the  writer,  nor  the 
church,  could  have  enjoyed  the  privilege  of  singing  in 
the  public  worship  of  God,  that  beautiful  Psalm.  For, 
"  Agreeably  to  the  example  in  Acts  iv.  24,  the  poet  may 
compose,  by  his  poetical  gift,  hymns ;  and  so  soon  as  the 
supreme  judicatory  of  the  church  shall  issue  her  sanction, 
they  may  be  sung  by  the  worshipping  people  of  God,  but 
not  till  then.  And  this,  remember,  is  the  very  thing  in- 
volved in  the  issue — the  gifted  Christian  poet,  by  poetic 
genius,  may  do  what  Luke  did,  by  inspiration.  Such  is 
the  assumption.  Such  is  the  conclusion.  Like  the  tyro, 
closing  his  black-board  demonstration,  the  author  of  this 
argument  may,   with   self-complacency,   exclaim — "  Quod 


56  PSALMODY. 

demonstrandum  end!"  All  this,  however,  is  but  to 
de  divine  inspiration,  and  to  exalt  ordinary  poetic 
talent  above  its  grade,  to  the  disparagement  of  the 
extraordinary  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  and  so  dishonor 
God. 

Thirdly. — Our  author  denies  that  the  Head  of  the  church 
inspired,  qualified  and  appointed,  even  to  compose,  gather 
and  arrange  songs  of  praise  for  the  use  of  the  church — 
that  such  men  did  that  work  for  the  church  by  divine  au- 
thority— that  we  have  that  work  in  the  Bible  as  the  pre- 
pared praise  for  the  use  of  the  church — as  also,  that 
anv  uninspired  man  may  prepare  songs  of  praise  for  the 
use  of  the  church.  On  the  other  hand,  he  affirms  that 
the  preparing  authority  is  in  the  church,  represented 
by  her  supreme  judicatory — that  to  sing  a  literal  scrip- 
ture psalm  is  "a  mere  modern  invention,  an  innovation 
upon  both  inspired  and  uninspired  authority."  That 
There  is  not  a  solitary  instance  in  the  New 
Testament,  of  the  singing  of  a  Psalm  of  David  in 
a  "literal"  form.  P.  80,  etc.  That  "such  sublime 
and  beautiful  portions  of  the  sacred  records — as  Isa.  xii. 
— are  songs  of  praise  already  made,  and  whether  they  be 
found  in  the  New  or  Old  Testament,  they  are  admirably 
Buited  to  the  worship  of  God.  It  would  be  easy  to  collect 
twice  the  number  of  the  Psalms,  of  such  admirable  composi- 
tions." P.  140.  Then  follows  a  whole  page  of  argument 
to  establish  the  affirmation  that.it  is  lawful,  and  that  we 
have  authority  from  the  word  of  God,  to  use  this  large 
collection  of  Bible  songs,  twice  the  number  of  the  Psalms, 
in  praising  God. 

The    labyrinth    of  words,    employed    throughout   this 

mode]  work    before  OS,  of  which  we   haw  here  given  but  a 

specimen  in  the  denials  and  affirmations,  the  assumptions 

and  contradictions  just  noticed,  suggests  many  curious  in- 


UNINSPIRED    PRAYER,   PRAISE   AND   PREACHING.      57 

quiries.  We  offer  a  very  brief  specimen  of  many  that 
might  very  justly  be  made,  all  of  which  require  solution, 
to  make  the  way  of  truth  plain. 

Had  David  any  authority,  by  inspiration,  to  prepare 
songs  of  praise,  for  the  use  of  the  church  ?  Or,  did  he — 
like  Christian  poets  now — only  "employ  his  noble  poetical 
talents  with  which  the  Author  of  every  good  and  perfect 
gift  endowed  him?  And  then,  were  the  productions  of 
his  poetic  genius  subjected  to  the  sanctioning  authority  of 
the  Sanhedrim  before  they  were  '  prepared  for  the  use  of 
the  church V  How  was  it?  Had  Isaiah,  Asaph,  Ezra,  or 
any  other  poet  or  scribe  of  the  law,  any  authority  from  the 
'head  of  the  church  to  compose,  gather  or  arrange  their 
own  songs  or  the  songs  of  others  for  the  use  of  the  church? 
Did  Miriam,  and  David,  and  Isaiah,  and  Ezra — did  any 
or  all  of  those  who  composed,  by  divine  inspiration,  these 
songs  of  praise  recorded  in  the  Bible,  '  twice  the  number 
of  the  Psalms/  sing  their  songs  and  Psalms  in  the  worship 
of  God,  and  the  church  with  them,  sing  as  we  have  them 
in  the  Bible,  as  the  inspired  word  of  God  ?  Or,  were  these 
inspired  songs  sung  in  some  other  uninspired,  unliteral 
form,  than  as  transmitted  to  us,  and  so  in  the  form  sung, 
lost  to  us?  Was  it  proper  for  them  to  sing  those  songs 
'  in  a  literal  form/  since  it  is  improper  for  us  so  to  sing 
them?  How  are  these  things?  Would  it  to  them  have 
been  '  a  mere  modern  invention  and  innovation,  to  have 
sung  those  songs  in  a  literal  form/  as  'made'  and  'pre- 
pared1 by  those  inspired  writers?"     Again  : — 

Had  Luke,  or  Peter,  or  John,  or  their  company,  au- 
thority to  compose  and  sing  Acts  iv.  24-30,  as  we  have  it 
recorded  "in  literal  form"?  Or,  did  they  so  sing  it  with- 
out its  having  been  submitted  to  a  Synod  of  apostles  and 
elders?  And  then,  have  we  those  seven  verses  of  that 
beautiful  song,  in  Acts  recorded,  as  composed  by  the  poet, 


f)8  PSALMODY. 

inspired  or  uninspired;  or,  have  we  it  as  examined  and 
sanctioned  by  the  apostolic  college?  And  still  farther — 
can  we  sing  it  as  we  find  it  in  its  "literal  form,"  as  Peter, 
and  John,  and  their  company  sang  it;  or,  must  we  have  it 
"altered  and  adapted  to  our  circumstances,"  and  then  ex- 
amined, amended,  and  sanctioned  by  the  supreme  judica- 
tory before  it  can  be  "prepared"  for  the  use  of  the  church, 
and  sung  in  her  public  worship? 

Did  the  author,  in  writing  pp.  140,  141,  forget  what  he 
had  written— pp.  80  and  132, 133?  In  80,  he  argues  that  the 
Psalms  were  never  sung  in  a  "  literal  form,"  in  New  Tes- 
tament times — that  the  divine  pattern  for  making  New 
Testament  Psalms  is,  by  grouping  as — "just  as  Dr.  Watts 
and  Presbyterians  do,"  and  as  Peter,  etc.,  did,  Acts  iv.  24 
— that  for  this  way  of  making  psalms  for  the  use  of  the 
church  there  is  "express  ' Divine  appointment/  "  In  pp. 
132,  133,  he  argues  that  poets  may  make  and  sing  psalms 
us  preachers  may  make  and  preach  sermons — that  any 
poet  may  compose,  the  supreme  judicatory  prepare  and 
sanction,  and  the  church  sing  the  same — that  this  is  the 
Presbyterian  way.  Yet,  in  p.  140,  he  says  :  "  It  is  a  plain 
dictate  of  common  sense,  that  to  versify  such  passages  of 
the  other  scriptures,  as  Isa.  xii.,  is  no  more  "  to  make 
songs  of  praise  than  to  versify  the  one  hundred  and  fifty 
Psalms  after  the  manner  of  Rouse.  Such  sublime  and 
beautiful  portions  of  the  sacred  records  are  songs  of  praise 
already  made" — and  whether  in  New  or  Old  Testament 
are  suitable  to  praise,  and  divinely  authorized  to  be  sung. 
"  The  authority  of  Isaiah  is  quite  sufficient,  if  there  were  no 
other."     Now,  we  may  ask  : 

far  as  authority  to  compose,  prepare,  or  sanction  is 
concerned,  which  i-  tin4  authorized  way — the  Presbyterian 
way,  or  the  way  of  [saiah,  pp.  140,  Ml  ?  Or,  had  they 
one  way  under  the  Old  Testament,  viz. :  singing  in  the 


UNINSPIRED   PRAYER,  PRAISE,  AND   PREACHING.       59 

"literal  form"  songs  "  already  made,"  and  another  in  the 
New  Testament,  "just  as  Dr.  Watts  and  Presbyterians 
do  ";  and  just  as  they  say  Peter,  in  Acts  iv.  24,  did?  How 
are  all  these  ? 

Again — In  regard  to  the  "  multitude  of  the  disciples  " 
who  sang  part  of  Psalm  cxviii — Luke  xix.  38 — "but  with 
alterations  adapted  to  the  circumstances,"  what  gifted 
poet,  or  which  of  the  disciples,  altered  the  Psalm,  "just  as 
Dr.  Watts  and  Presbyterians  do  "?  Or,  did  they  all  im- 
promptu alter  in  unison  and  sing  as  it  came  from  the 
poet,  whoever  that  may  have  been?  Or,  did  they  sing  it 
as  sanctioned  by  the  highest  judicatory  to  which  they  were 
subordinate?  How,  and  by  what  process,  did  "the  whole 
multitude  of  the  disciples,"  on  the  highway,  in  that  grand 
procession,  alter  and  adapt  to  circumstances,  that  Psalm, 
as  Watts  and  Presbyterians  do,  securing  the  sanction  of 
"supreme  judicatory"?  For,  we  suppose  the  loving  dis- 
ciples, right  under  the  eye  of  the  beloved  Saviour,  would 
not  dare  an  "invention  and  innovation"  by  singing  a 
"Psalm  of  David  in  a  literal  form"!  Nor  would  the 
poetic  multitude  dare  sing  their  own  composition  without 
the  sanction  of  the  church  in  the  Presbyterian  way  !  Or, 
after  all,  were  the  "  multitude  of  the  disciples,"  now  es- 
corting Christ  in  his  triumphal  entrance  into  Jerusalem, 
really  holding  prayer-meeting,  for  which  they  needed  to 
prepare  a  Psalm  "  adapted  to  the  circumstances  "?  Were 
they  attending  public  worship  and  the  preaching  of  the 
word  by  their  Master,  or  some  other  preacher,  and  at  the 
beginning  of  the  service,  or  at  its  close,  or  both,  had  tliov — 
poor  multitude,  without  Bible  or  Hymnal,  really  just  then 
and  there — to  make  a  model  hymn,  and  in  a  model  way, 
"just  as  Dr.  Watts  and  Presbyterians  do"?  "Tins  is  an 
inspired  pattern  for  making  New  Testament  Psalms") 
Just  in  the  likeness  of  this  pattern,  did  any  Christian  poet, 


60  PSALMODY. 

or  any  Christian  church  in  the  world,  ever  think  or  dream 
of  making  New  Testament  Psalms  for  the  use  of  her  public 

praise?  Not  in  one  single  feature  of  this  narrative  has 
any  church  ever  attempted  to  copy  in  preparing  her  songs. 
That  the  promiscuous  crowd  may  have  shouted  their 
hosapnas,  and  huzzas  in  the  language  of  the  Psalm  ;  or, 
that  they  may  have  sung  in  unison  words  memorized,  may, 
as  a  hypothesis,  have  some  claim  to  common  sense;  but 
thai  in  that  triumphal  march,  in  the  shouting  of  the  mul- 
titude, we  can  find  a  pattern  for  altering  and  modelling  Bible 
Psalms,  and  making  New  Testament  songs,  is  germain  to 
the  cause  for  which  it  is  used. 

And  farther  :  AVe  have  "  the  song  of  Mary  the  mother 
of  our  Lord,  and  of  Zacharias  and  Elizabeth,  the  song  of 
the  angels  at  the  birth  of  Christ,  and  the  numerous  sub- 
lime hymns  of  praise  in  the  Kevelation."  These  examples 
of  our  author  are  songs  and  hymns,  original  compositions, 
and  not  Psalms,  by  "alteration,  adapted  to  the  circum- 
stances." These  are  not  examples  of  "  grouping  together 
the  Psalms  along  with  other  inspired  matter,  just  as  Dr. 
Watts  and  Presbyterians  do,"  for  inspired  matter  grouped 
with  other  inspired  matter  would  be  inspired  matter  still; 
still  the  word  of  God;  scripture,  not  merely  scriptural. 
To  the  inquiring  reader  some  curious  inquiries  are  very 
naturally  suggested  here: 

Did  Mary,  and  Zacharias,  and  Elizabeth,  and  the  an- 
gels, compose  and  write  down  their  songs,  as  Watts  ami 
other  gifted  poets  do?  And  Luke  finding  them,  did  he 
write  them  down  in  his  history  as  he  found  their  manu- 
scripts? Or,  was  Luke  inspired  to  record  so  much  of 
what  each  oC  these  persons  "said"  in  mere  extertipore 
prayer,  or  thanksgiving  in  ejaculatory  form,  as  the  Spirit, 
of  inspiration  directed  him?  If  Mary  ami  the  angels,  as 
gifted   poets,  composed  and   wrote  their  songs,  did   they 


UNINSPIRED   PEAYER,  PRAISE,  AND   PREACHING.      61 

submit  tliem  for  the  revision  and  sanction  of  the  church, 
that  they  might  be  used  in  her  public  praise?  Or,  if  thei* 
songs  were  inspired,  then,  whether  they  or  Luke  penned 
them,  they  are  scripture  psalms;  and  should  they  still  be 
recomposed  and  made  uninspired,  as  the  hymnals  are,  and 
then  subjected  to  supreme  judicatory,  before,  by  authority, 
they  can  be  prepared  and  sung?  And  where  shall  we  find 
the  requisite  amending  and  preparing  judicatory  to  fit 
angel's  songs,  or  inspired  songs,  for  Presbyterian  praise  ? 

Now,  in  all  this  assumption  of  "  inspired  pattern  for 
making"  songs  of  praise  for  the  use  of  the  church,  where, 
in  all  these  cases  of  example,  so  boldly  paraded,  is  there 
one  single  parallel  line  or  point?  If  the  Head  of  the 
church,  by  inspiring  holy  men ;  if,  by  his  Spirit  inditing 
to  them  songs  of  praise ;  if,  by  giving  to  his  church, 
through  those  inspired  men,  inspired  songs  of  praise  per- 
fectly adapted  to  that  end,  did  not  prepare  and  authorize 
for  the  use  of  the  church  in  her  public  praise,  then  there 
is  no  authority  in  the  church,  or  among  men,  to  prepare 
songs  for  such  use.  When  any  theory  or  assumption,  car- 
ried out  to  its  legitimate  consequences  and  conclusions, 
becomes  absurd,  and  indeed  ridiculous,  it  is  time  to  aban- 
don it.  But  to  adduce  the  example  of  the  multitude, 
Luke  xix.  28,  in  making  songs  of  praise  for  the  use  of  the 
church  in  the  public  worship  of  God,  is  simply  ludicrous! 

Fourthly. — We  notice,  in  the  references  to  our  author, 
want  of  logical  candor,  prejudicial  to  truth  and  fact.  He 
tells  his  readers  that  the  Presbyterian  Church  sanctions 
uninspired  hymns,  just  as  the  Scottish  General  Assembly 
sanctioned  Rouse.  It  is  not  charging  too  much  to  say. 
that  the  author  endeavors  to  make  the  impression  that  the 
uninspired  hymns  of  his  church,  for  which  no  one  lavs 
claim  of  inspiration,  are  just  as  much  inspired  as  the 
Scottish  version  of  the  Psalms,  received  and  used  by  its 
6 


62 


PSALMODY. 


friends  a<  a  translation.  It  is  too  late  to  attempt,  by 
chicanery,  to  divert  the  intelligent  reader  from  the  real 
issue  on  the  question  of  Psalmody.  Scripture  or  scriptural, 
inspired  or  uninspired,  are  the  indexical  or  representative 
terms  too  well  known  in  this  controversy  to  be  evaded  by 
a  mere  dixit. 

That  the  Church  of  Scotland,  in  adopting  the  version  of 
the  Book  of  Psalms,  still  used  by  the  churches  which  pro- 
fess to  use  a  scripture  psalmody,  meant  to  be  understood 
as  doing  just  the  same  thing  as  the  supreme  judicatory  did 
in  authorizing  the  hymnal  of  the  present  day,  is  not  sus- 
tained by  the  leading  facts  of  their  respective  histories. 
The  one  was  passing  upon  a  metrical  version,  or  translation, 
of  one  of  the  books  of  the  inspired  Bible,  diligently  com- 
paring with  the  original  Hebrew  text.  The  other  was 
passing  upon  a  collection  of  poems,  without  any  preten- 
sions by  anybody,  either  poets  or  supreme  judicatory,  to 
being  a  version  of  anything,  far  less  of  any  book  of  the 
Bible. 

The  Waldensian  Church  had  chanted  the  Psalter,  time 
immemorial.  So  Dr.  Revel,  Professor  of  Theology  in  the 
Waldensian  Seminary,  said  in  the  writer's  hearing  twenty 
years  ago.  The  Huguenots  of  France  used  a  version  of 
the  Book  of  Psalms.  The  churches  of  the  Netherlands,  as 
early  as  the  days  of  William  the  Silent,  according  to  Mot- 
ley's History,  used  a  Flemish  version  of  the  Psalter.  The 
Geneva  and  Scottish  churches  used  the  Psalter,  in  some 
kind  of  a  version,  how  good  or  how  indifferent,  we  leave 
for  another  connection,  in  which  the  merits  of  respective 
translations  may  he  noticed.  In  the  early  dayB  of  the 
Reformation,  " chanl  the  Psalter"  was,  to  all  the  churches 
referred  to,  a  familiar  phrase.  In  the  course  o\'  time  the 
question  of  psalmody  was  raised  among  them — "chant  the 
Psalter,"  or  sing  a  metrical  version,     At   the  second    Re* 


UNINSPIRED   PRAYER,  PRAISE   AND    PREACHING.       63 

formation — the  times  of  llie  Westminster  Assembly — the 
Church  of  Scotland,  while  reforming  other  things,  en- 
deavored to  secure  a  better  version  of  the  Book  of  Psalms. 
Whether  introducing  metrical  versions,  and  bringing  into 
use  measured  singing,  instead  of  simply  chanting  the 
Psalter,  was  a  wise  measure,  may  be  a  question.  But  that 
the  Church  of  Scotland,  during  her  long  labors  in  amend- 
ing the  Psalms  versified  by  Rouse,  and  in  making  new 
versions  of  a  large  portion  of  the  book,  entertained  neither 
the  idea  of  a  paraphrase  in  the  sense  now  generally  under- 
stood, nor  in  the  sense  especially  used  by  our  friends  on 
the  other  side  here,  needs  no  elaborate  argument.  Even 
yet  Webster  gives,  for  "  paraphrasing/'  "  explaining  or 
translating  amply  and  freely"  So,  even  interpret  is  used  for 
translating  one  language  into  another  ;  as  when  the  mis- 
sionary goes  first  to  the  heathen  he  uses  an  interpreter  till 
he  acquires  a  knowledge  of  the  native  language.  Argu- 
ments based  on  mere  verbal  criticism,  and  of  words,  too, 
whose  use,  after  the  lapse  of  a  few  hundred  years,  has  suf- 
fered change,  are  not  always  conclusive.  Men  of  candor, 
in  grave  religious  controversy,  will  deal  sparingly  in  such 
craft. 

Now,  whether  the  Scottish  Assembly  succeeded,  in  every 
instance,  in  giving  "  The  Book  of  Psalms  in  metre ;  trans- 
lated and  diligently  compared  ivith  the  original  text,  and 
former  translations;  more  plain,  smoother  and  agreeable  to 
the  text  than  any  heretofore;"  as  was  understood  on  all 
hands  she  professed  to  give  ;  or,  whether  she  failed  in  some 
of  her  translations,  as  all  translators  may  do,  has  about 
the  same  affinity  to  the  issue  before  us  as  the  question 
whether  the  version  of  King  James  is  a  better  book  than 
the  Koran.  King  James'  translation  has  many  mistn\ns- 
iations;  yet  it  is  The  Bible:  the  recognized  Word  of  God, 


G4  PSALMODY. 

and,  after  all,  a  Letter  book  than  the  Koran,  or  Hymnal 
either. 

To  test  the  merits  of  the  Scottish  version  of  the  Book 
of  Psalms,  as  a  correct  translation,  by  King  James'  trans- 
lation, before  the  unlearned  masses,  is  simply  to  play  small 
tricks:  so,  to  say  the  supreme  judicatory  of  the  Presby- 
terian  Church  examines,  amends,  sanctions  her  hymnals, 
"just  as  the  Scottish  General  Assembly  sanctioned  Rouse." 
In  the  one  case  one  Assembly  had  to  deal  with  "a  version," 
a  translation,  whose  ultimate  test  was  the  Hebrew  text  ; 
and  if,  when  amended,  it  was  found  to  be  a  better  transla- 
tion, and  b(  ■'<  r  and  smoother  poetry,  it  was  then  to  be  sub- 
stituted ibr  a  former  and  worse  translation.  That  was  the 
question  and  subject  before  the  Scottish  Assembly  about 
two  hundred  and  twenty-five  years  ago.  In  the  other  ease 
the  other  Assembly  has  to  do  with  a  collection  of  jxjems : 
unlike  the  Book  of  Psalms,  or  any  other  book  of  the  in- 
spired Bible:  a  collection  without  any  ecclesiastical  status 
or  authority  whatever,  from  either  the  church  or  from  her 
Head;  and  the  use  of  this  she  sanctions,  and  clothes  for 
the  very  first  time  with  its  first  ecclesiastical  and  sacred 
swaddling-cloth.  To  pass  upon  translations  is  one  thing : 
the  translation  of  a  book  of  the  Bible;  to  pass,  as  a  mere 
"Publication  Board,"  or  " Committee,"  upon  any  compo- 
sition of  man,  is  another  thing.  All  this  tilting  with  the 
terms  "paraphrase"  and  "patchwork,"  in  a  question  on 
the  exclusive  use  of  inspired  songs  in  the  worship  of  God, 
may  be  what  its  authors  desire  it  to  be,  and  so  answer 
their  end  ;  one  thing  it  cannot  be  :  it  cannot  be  an  intelli- 
gent argument  addressed  to  the  understanding  of  an  intel- 
ligent Christian  who  believes  the  Bible  songs  to  be  superior 
to  all  uninspired  compositions,  and  who  believes  them  to 
b        ven  by  the  Head  of  the  church  for  her  praise,  and 

who   can    find,    nowhere,    authority   for    any   other.       And 


UNINSPIRED    PRAYER,    PRAISE   AND    PftBACHING.      65 

farther:  such  cannot  convince  intelligent  Bible  Psalm- 
singers,  who  read  from  opponents,  thus  :  "  Where  has  God 
authorized  an}7  uninspired  man  to  prepare  songs  of  praise 
for  the  church?  Presbyterians  answer,  nowhere  I "  And 
then,  when  they  read  the  assumption  without  shadow  of 
proof — the  popish  assumption — that  the  Head  of  the 
church  has  lodged  the  praise  making  power  in  supreme 
judicatory  of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  And  then,  again, 
in  the  third  place,  when  they  read  from  the  same  pen  : 
"  Such  sublime  and  beautiful  portions  of  the  sacred  records, 
and  whether  they  be  found  in  the  New  or  Old  Testament, 
they  are  admirably  suited  to  the  worship  of  God."  "  But 
is  it  lawful  to  use  them  in  praising  God  ?  What  says  the 
Holy  Ghost  by  the  writers  of  many  of  those  passages  ? 
Sing  unto  the  Lord :  sing  unto  the  Lord  a  new  song." 
[Isa.  xlii.  10.]  "We  think  the  authority  of  Isaiah  is  quite 
sufficient  if  there  were  no  other."  Such  are  the  very  posi- 
tive statements  in  the  work  before  us. 

Now,  as  to  the  first  and  third  of  the  above  positions  of 
our  author,  all  agree :  no  man  uninspired  has  authority  to 
prepare  songs  of  praise  for  the  church  ;  the  songs  prepared 
by  the  Holy  Spirit,  recorded  in  the  Bible,  are  prepared 
and  authorized  for  the  use  of  the  church  in  her  worship. 
The  second  is  the  assumption  in  dispute :  the  authority  of 
the  supreme  judicatory  to  prepare  and  authorize.  For  the 
following  reasons  this  assumption  is  false,  presumptuous 
and  dangerous: 

1.  There  is^not  the  shadoiv  of  a  hint  of  any  such 
authority  lodged  exclusively  in  supreme  judicatory :  not  a 
whit  more  than  in  any  uninspired  man,  of  whom  it  is  so 
promptly  denied.  The  proof  offered  here  in  support  of  t lie 
assumption  is  an  insult  to  the  Head  of  the  church.  He 
has  promised  to  be  with  the  ministry  in  the  preaching  of  the 
gospel,  and  in  administering  the  seals  of  the  new  covenant. 
6* 


66  PSALMODY. 

This  teaching  power  never  comes  into  a  church  judicatory. 
The  ruling  power  only  :  elders,  lay  and  ministerial,  with 
parity  of  power,  sit  here  together  for  judgment:  for  the  ad- 
ministration of  law,  not  for  legislation.  Church  jv 
tories  may  never  dare  do  what  Christ,  the  Lawgiver,  has 
done  for  his  house  and  kingdom.  But,  as  the  only  Law- 
giver, and  Author  of  all  institutions  and  ordinances  and 
rites  of  worship  in  his  own  house,  he  has  prepared,  given 
and  authorized,  by  inspired  men,  songs  of  praise.  No  other 
is  authorized  to  do  any  such  thing.  In  any  government, 
can  any  person  or  combination  of  persons  do  what  the  law 
commissioned  an  officer  to  do  by  commission  ?  Try  it  in 
levying  and  collecting  taxes.  Try  it  in  regard  to  any  legal 
and  official  function,  and  learn  whether  the  majesty  of  gov- 
ernment and  law  be  not  insulted. 

2.  The  assumption  leads  necessarily  to  confusion,  heresy, 
sectarianism  and  schism.  By  their  fruits  ye  shall  know 
them.  True,  this  is  not  the  only  source  of  these  evils. 
Alas!  only  one  of  many.  Anomalous,  indeed,  that  any 
sect  should  fail  to  enstamp  one  single  distinctive  feature 
upon  its  hymnology.  And  nearly  as  anomalous,  perhaps 
far  more  so,  should  any  one  of  them  all  fail  to  be  deeply 
tainted  with  error.  Take  this  one,  of  a  hundred  examples 
which  have  had,  or  now  have,  a  place  in  the  hymnology 
of  one  of  the  most  evangelical  of  the  churches  of  this  land  : 

"  0,  if  my  soul  were  formed  for  woe,  how  would  I  vent  mv  Bighs, 
Repentance  should  like  rivers  flow,  from  both  my  Btreaming  eye?. 
'Twas  for  my  sins  my  dearest  Lord  hung  on  the  accursed  tree; 
And  groaned  away  a  dying  life,  for  thee,  my  bouI,  for  th< 

We  have  seen  the  intelligent  Armenian  clench  hoth  lips 
and  teeth  while  the  first  line  was  being  sung;  because  he 
ed  God  never  formed  any  soul  for  woe.     And  how 
any  Calvmist  could  sing  these  four  lines  with  understand- 
ing and  heart  we  know  not.     While  it  was  in  the  book 


UNINSPIRED    PRAYER,    PRAISE    AND    PREACHING.      67 

and  sung,  it  must  have  been  sung  by  good  people  in  igno- 
rance; for  how  otherwise  could  sincere  Christians  sing  a 
Saviour  dying  for  souls  fanned  for  ivoe,  and  such  souls  the 
subject  of  the  Spirit's  grace,  repentance?  Like  this:  how 
many  hundred  hymns,  in  singing  which,  would  it  not  be 
better  to  listen  to  the  organ,  and  attach  no  meaning  what- 
ever ? 

Take  another  example,  and  still  worse,  because  it  horri- 
bly mutilates  and  perverts  a  beautiful  gospel  portion  of 
God's  word  to  the  cause  of  error.  Not  an  example  of  ex- 
purgated composition,  to  whose  glaring  absurdity  use  and 
public  sentiment  have  directed  attention  and  final  expur- 
gation ;  but  a  par  excellent,  current  song,  exhibited  as  of 
specimen  interest,  the  boast  of  representative  advocates  of 
a  lui  man  psalmody:  a  pattern  specimen  of  the  correct  ren- 
dering of  the  very  words  of  divine  inspiration,  putting 
Rouse  to  the  blush,  and  throwing  the  test  standard  itself, 
King  James'  Bible,  in  the  shade. 

Here  is  "  the  correct  rendering  "  (!)  of  these  words  found 
in  the  first  clause  of  the  10th  verse  of  the  xvith  Psalm : 
"  For  thou  wilt  not  leave  my  soul  in  hell."  "  Though  in 
the  dust  I  lay  my  head,  yet,  gracious  God,  thou  wilt  not 
leave  my  soul  forever  with  the  dead."  With  the  transla- 
tion we  will  deal  in  another  connection.  The  heresy  of  this 
boasted  pattern  of  human  'composition  is  now  before  us. 
Mark  well  this  specimen  of  "the  correct  rendering"  of  the 
words  of  the  Holy  Spirit :  this  specimen  of  enchanting, 
beautiful  "  gospel  turn,"  in  turning  David  into  a  Christian, 
and  Christ  out  of  this  Psalm,  and  the  doctrine  of  the  resur- 
rection of  his  body  mystified  by  the  murky  clouds  of  pagan 
limbo  and  popish  purgatory  for  the  soul:  this  specimen  of 
deep,  dishonoring,  semi-infidel  thrust  at  the  Saviour,  turn- 
ing a  blessed  portion  of  his  own  word,  testifying  of  himself, 
into  a  kind  of  parody  upon  David  :  this  specimen  of  the 


68  PSALMODY. 

necessity,  from  consistency,  and  the  power  of  error,  of 
throwing  a  thick  vail  over  the  Psalms  to  hide  Christ  from 
the  view  of  faith  and  the  worshipper,  and  so  play  into  the 
hand  of  a  human  psalmody.  Of  this  specimen  of  "  the 
correct  rendering,"  we  charge : 

1.  As  a  pretended  rendering  of  that  portion  of  God's 
word,  which  has  the  resurrection  of  Christ's  body  for  its 
subject,  it  is  sheer  nonsense.  For,  Christ  had  but  one  hu- 
man soul  and  one  human  body.  At  his  death,  that  one  soul 
passed  immediately  into  glory,  where  there  is  no  death. 
His  one  body  was  laid  in  the  grave,  a  visible  place.  He 
had  no  third  pari  that  could  go  with  the  dead,  the  limbo  or 
hades  of  the  Pagan,)  or  the  purgatory  of  the  Papist:  the  in- 
visible or. separate  place  of  the  dead. 

2.  It  is  sheer  heresy.  Christ's  soul — David's,  or  the 
Christian's,  by  Watts — was  never,  at  any  time,  even  while 
his  body  lay  in  the  grave,  tcith  the  dead,  in  any  orthodox, 
or  evangelical  sense.  In  this  line  of  the  Psalm  there  is  no 
reference  to  Christ's  soul;  not  one  word. 

3.  It  is  the  heresy  of  p)°p'^1  purgatory.  But  what  is 
that?  Simply  that  limbo,  that  purgatory,  where  departed 
souls  go,  that  separate  place,  neither  heaven  nor  hell,  nor 
yet  the  grave,  where  Christ's  body  was  laid;  that  place,  or 
no  place,  with  the  dead. 

This  idea,  of  the  old  English  sense  of  the  Hebrew  sheol 
and  the  Greek  hades,  as  applied  by  Dr.  Watts  to  the  line 
of  the  Psalm  before  us,  is  derived  from  dark  pagandom, 
baptized  by  popery.  The  heathen  writers,  knowing  noth- 
ing of  the  soul's  future  state,  nothing  of  its  immortality, 
wrote  of  death  much  like  their  disciples  of  the  French  in- 
fidel school.  Death  an  eternal  sleep.  The  dark  future. 
The  invisible  world.     The  unknown  Btate  of  the  soul  after 

death.      With  this  state  of  the  SOUl,  the  heathen  associated 

the  expressive  word  hades,  whose  very  etymology  sett 


UNINSPIRED    PRAYER,   FRAIBE   AND   PREACHING.      00 

application,  unseen,  invisible.  The  Christian  sees,  with 
the  eye  of  sense,  where  the  body  is  laid.  He  sees,  with  an 
eve  of  faith,  where  the  soul  goes.  A  paganized  church, 
only,  needs  a  third  place,  with  the  dead,  where  Watts'  cor- 
rect rendering  sends  the  soul,  while  he  sings  of  the  body : 
"  Though  in  the  dust  I  lay  my  head" — 

But,  then,  it  is  beautiful  poetry.  And  how  many  pious 
souls,  with  characteristic  sneer  looking  down  upon  the 
Psalm-singers,  can,  in  most  heavenly  raptures,  sing  this 
very  nonsense  and  popish  heresy.  Is  ignorance  the  mother 
of  devotion?  It  must  be  so!  for  how  can  any  Christian, 
with  the  understanding,  sing  this  specimen?  Could 
psalm-explaining  set  all  right  here?  All  the  efforts  of 
all  the  Doctors  of  Divinity  in  the  world  can  make  neither 
truth  nor  sense  of  it.  Perhaps  just  here  lies  the  secret 
charm  of  poetry:  mystery  wrapt  in  clouds  and  darkness, 
and  imagination  transported  into  the  awful  invisible! 

We  have  neither  time  nor  space  to  review  all  the  secta- 
rian hymn-books  in  use  among  the  churches,  from  the  most 
evangelical  down  to  the  Arian,  the  Universalist  and  the 
Roman  Catholic  societies.  In  the  face  of  them  all,  one 
fact  is  beyond  controversy — the  songs  of  the  Bible  are 
perfect.  On  the  other  hand,  all  these  sectarian  hymn- 
books  are  full  of  sectarian  heresy  and  contradiction. 
How  can  it  be  otherwise?  Catholic  hymns  savor  not  of 
protestantism.  Immersers  will  hardly  fail  to  sing  their 
darling  distinctive — the  efficacy  of  "  much  water."  The 
Universalist  will  be  slow  to  conceal  from  his  hymnology 
his  all-glorious,  happy,  helless  future.  And  so  through 
the  whole  labyrinth  of  sectarian  hymnology  from  entrance 
to  exit.  The  assumption,  then,  is  false,  presumptuous  and 
dangerous,  because, 

3.  Against  such  the  Head  of  the  church  has  made  ample 
provision.     We  shall  be  content  here  with  the  concessions 


70  PSALMODY. 

of  our  friends.  They  concede  first)  that  no  uniru 
man  is  authorized  to  prepare  songs  for  the  church.  They 
concede  secondly >  that  in  the  sacred  records  are  sublime 
and  beautiful  songs  of  praise  already  made.  They  concede 
thirdly,  that  those  songs  are  admirably  suited  to  the  worship 
of  God,  whether  found  in  New  or  Old  Testament.  They 
concede  fourthly,  that  God  has  authorized  these  to  be  used 
in  his  worship.  They  concede  in  the  fifth  place,  "  that  it 
would  be  easy  to  collect  twice  the  number  of  the  Psalms,  of 
such  admirable  composition,  authorized  by  the  Head  of  the 
church,  to  be  used  in  his  worship."  There  are  some  two 
thousand  four  hundred  verses  of  praise  in  the  Book  of 
Psalms.  "Twice  the  number  added"  will  make  over 
seven  thousand  verses  of  sacred  song,  without  error,  infalli- 
ble, all  admirably  suited  for  God's  worship.  This  collec- 
tion would  make  a  hymn-book,  all  scripture,  of  about 
twelve  hundred  pieces,  of  six  verses  each. 

Now,  in  regard  to  this  collection,  and  in  view  of  the 
concessions  referred  to,  some  queries  are  suggested  for  the 
consideration  of  the  friends  of  the  unity  of  the  body  of 
Christ. 

Would  not  such  a  collection,  made  with  judgment,  be 
satisfactory  to  all  as  to  its  largeness  and  its  variety  of  mat- 
ter? Would  it  not  be  orthodox? — orthodox  enough  for 
all  evangelical  Christians?  Would  it  not  be  perfect? — 
perfect  as  other  parts  of  God's  word  ?  Would  it  not  all 
be  suitable  to  the  worship  of  God?  Would  it  not  be 
superior  to  every  other  hymn-book  now  in  use  in  any  of 
the  churches?  Might  it  not  be  a  basis  of  union  for  all  the 
evangelical  churches,  so  far  as  psalmody  is  concerned? 
Would  not  the  offer  of  such  a  hymnology,  as  a  basis  of 
union,  give   to  the  church  offering  it  a  vantage  ground 

over   all    the   other   churches?      And    might   it  not  be  well 

to  remember  that  there  is  do  creed,  or  term  of  communion, 


UNINSPIRED    PRAYER,    PRAISE   AND   PREACHING.      71 

With  any  evangelical  church,  making  the  use  of  such  a 
collection  a  bar  to  fellowship? — "the  compositions  of  un- 
inspired men  "  only. 

Fifthly. — In  this  quotation  before  us,  we  have  an  at- 
tempt to  conceal  fallacy,  and  use  it  for  argument.  While 
it  concedes  that  there  is  neither  authority,  nor  promise  of 
aid,  for  any  uninspired  man  to  prepare  psalms,  for  the  use 
of  the  church  ;  yet,  by  a  little  tact  in  transferring  a  prom- 
ise from  its  designed  and  specified  object  to  another,  not 
contemplated  at  all,  the  end  seems  to  be  gained.  "There 
are  precious  and  abundant  promises  to  the  church  of 
Christ,  that  the  presence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  shall  be  with 
her  public  councils."  Here  borrowing  promised  presence, 
and  using  it  for  the  purpose  of  doing  her  own  will,  in- 
stead of  her  Master's — in  preparing  psalms  for  the  use  of 
the  church,  a  work  the  Master  has  reserved  for  himself; 
a  work  to  which  He  has  neither  appointed  her  councils, 
nor  for  which  promised  his  Spirit.  Again — "  Has  he  not 
promised  to  be  with  her  '  to  the  end  of  the  world?'  Here 
is  borrowing  promise  and  presence.  First,  from  the  gospel 
ministry,  and  giving  to  church  councils.  Second,  from  the 
work  of  preaching  the  gospel,  to  the  work  of  f  preparing 
songs  of  praise  for  the  church,'  a  work  which  '  no  unin- 
spired man'  may  do,  as  conceded.  Might  not  our  author 
as  well  borrow  a  little  '  inspiration '  for  the  occasion,  or 
Peter's  key  to  complete  the  infallibility  ?" 

True,  Christ  has  commissioned  and  commanded  the 
missionary  of  the  cross,  to  go  into  all  the  world  and  preach 
— True,  he  has  promised  to  go  with  the  missionary  in  this 
work  of  preaching  "to  the  end  of  the  world;"  but  is  it 
true  that  he  has  commissioned  and  commanded  chuivh 
councils  to  make  psalms  for  the  church,  or  that  he  has 
promised  either  his  Spirit  or  presence  in  any  such  work  ? 
And  has  a  "supreme  judicatory"  the  right  to  assume  the 


72  PSALMODY. 

Master's  work,  and  tlien  beg,  or  borrow  promises  to  shield 
her  in  her  bold  assumption?  Or,  are  divine  commissions 
and  promises  convertible,  so  that  any  promise,  made  to 
any  other  one  commissioned  to  any  specified  work,  may  be 
claimed  by  church  councils,  when  they  may  please  to  as- 
sume any  work  to  which  they  have  not  the  shadow  of  a 
call  ?  Christ  has  promised  his  presence  to  the  dying  saint 
while  passing  through  the  dark  valley  of  the  shadow  of 
(loath  ;  therefore,  Christ  has  promised  his  presence  to  the 
public  councils  of  the  church  in  preparing  psalms  for  her 
use!  Christ  has  promised  to  go  with  the  missionary  to 
preach;  therefore,  he  will  be  with  "supreme  judicatory," 
in  making  psalms!  What  else  might  she  not  do,  just  as 
Romish  conclave  does,  under  covert  of  the  missionary's 
promise — "  Lo,  I  am  with  you,  to  the  end  of  the  world  ?" 
"  Thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my 
church !" 

That  we  are  not  here  mistaken  in  regard  to  the  falla- 
cious assumption,  what  closes  the  quotation,  makes  evi- 
dent— "And  have  we  not  at  least  as  good  grounds  to  hope 
for  this  gracious  presence  with  the  collective  'body  of 
Christ/  when  the  church  is  amending  and  authorizing 
songs  of  praise,  as  when  uninspired  men  of  the  Uni- 
ted Presbyterian  persuasion  are  explaining  House  to  their 
congregations,  and  putting  into  their  hearts  the  sentiments 
which  they  shall  feel  when  uttering  the  language  of  the 
paraphrase  V 

A  brief  analysis  of  our  author's  argument  here:  1.  lie 
assumes  that  the  Scottish  version  of  the  Book  of  Psalm?  is 
no  more  scripture  than  Watts — nothing  but  Blouse's  para- 
phrase— not  scripture  at  all.  2.  From  this  assumption 
he  justly  infers,  thai  we  have  no  right  to  use  this  version 
as  we  use  tli<"  scriptures,  making  it  a  Text-Book  from 
which  to  preach,  just  as  Chrisl  used  the  Book  in  which  lie 


UNINSPIRED    PRAYER,    PRAISE   AND   PREACHING.      73 

found  Isa.  lxi.  1,  2,  from  which  he  lectured,  or  expounded, 
or  preached  as  recorded  in  Luke  iv.  18-22.  3.  He  then 
concludes,  that  his  church  council  is  about  as  safe,  as  to 
authority,  and  Christ's  promised  presence,  in  making  and 
authorizing  psalms  for  the  use  of  the  church,  as  we  are  in 
using  in  the  pulpit,  ministerially,  a  doggerel  paraphrase 
for  the  Bible.  That  is,  all  this  claim  of  council  is  as  silly 
as  the  silly  thing  to  which  he  compares  it.  While  this 
may  do  very  well  as  disparagement  of  the  claim  of  author- 
ity and  the  Master's  presence  in  the  work  of  psalm-ex- 
plaining, it  destroys  the  high  claims  of  councils  for  psalm- 
making. 

But  the  assumption  being  false,  the  wrhole  argument 
built  upon  it,  is  alike  false.  The  Scottish  version  is  scrip- 
ture, if  the  Septuagint  from  which  Christ  and  his  Apostles 
quoted  and  preached  is  scripture.  And  it  is  too  late  to 
blot  out  the  Septuagint  from  the  long  recognized  list  of 
translations  of  the  Bible.  And  so,  it  is  too  late  to  cast 
off  the  Scottish  version,  a  better  one  than  .  the  one  recog- 
nized and  used  as  scripture  in  Christ's  and  his  Apostles' 
times.  And  yet,  whenever  our  author,  or  his  friends,  with 
Hebrew  Bible  in  hand,  will  show  us  that  the  Scottish  ver- 
sion of  the  psalms  is  a  worse  translation  than  the  Septua- 
gint ;  so  much  worse,  that  it  cannot  be  recognized  as  scrip- 
ture, then  will  we  consider  that  our  ministerial  expositions 
of  our  metrical  translation  of  the  Book  of  Psalms,  are  as 
trifling  as  church  councils  making  psalms  for  the  worship 
of  God.  Till  this  shall  be  done,  United  Presbyterian 
ministers,  by  virtue  of  their  commission  to  expound  the 
whole  Word  of  God — as  Christ  from  a  translation — will 
continue,  as  ever,  to  expound  the  Book  of  Psalms,  either 
in  prose  or  poesy  translation,  or  from  the  Hebrew  text  it- 
self; for  they  explain  sometimes  from  one,  sometimes  from 
7 


74  rSALMODY. 

another,  sometimes  availing  themselves  of  all  three,  and 
oftentimes  even  of  more. 

In  the  sixth  place. — This  whole  claim  of  church  preroga- 
tive here  assumed,  is  essentially  popish.  It  all  proceeds 
on  the  assumption  of  New  Testament  privilege — Christian 
liberty — liberty  of  "supreme  judicatory,"  to  establish  any- 
thing in  the  worship  of  God  she  pleases,  not  expressly  for- 
bidden. 

It  has  ever  been  the  glory  of  Protestantism,  in  every 
protestant  country,  and  among  all  the  departments  of  the 
protestant  family,  not  turned  back  toward  popery,  to  con- 
tend for  the  simplicity  and  purity  of  the  worship  of  God, 
as  instituted  in  his  word  ;  and  to  protest  against  all  ways 
of  worship  of  mere  human  device-^"  any  other  way  not 
appointed  in  the  Word."  The  Catholic  tells  us  he  may 
worship  God  any  way  holy  mother  church  ordains,  if  not 
forbidden  ;  and  therefore,  because  the  worship  of  the  sacra- 
mental wafer  is  not  expressly  among  forbidden  objects, 
and  because  the  church  by  prerogative,  decrees  this  Chris- 
tian liberty,  and  enjoins  its  exercise  upon  her  credulous 
children,  the  obedient  son  bows  in  homage  reverently  be- 
fore the  body,  blood  and  presence  of  the  Saviour !  So,  he 
can  bow  before  the  image  of  the  "Mother  of  God,"  or  the 
image  of  any  of  the  saints  canonized  by  church  prerogative. 
Popery  can  make  or  unmake,  objects  and  ways  of  worship, 
ordain  and  annul  ceremonies  and  rites,  bind  and  loose  the 
conscience  at  will. 

So,  too,  say  some  protestants,  as  the  church  of  England 
in  her  claims  of  ritualistic  privilege,  and  so  in  the  claims 
of  "supreme  judicatory,"  to  make  and  unmake  matter  and 
manual  of  praise,  and  bind  the  Bame  upon  the  church. 
"For,  there  are  precious  and  ubmnhinf  promises  to  'The 
church  of  Christ/  that  the  presence  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
shall  be  with  her  public  councils — with  the  collective  'body 


UNINSPIRED    PRAYER,    PRAISE   AND   PREACHING.      75 

of  Christ/  when  the  church  is  amending  and  authorizing 
these  songs  of  praise  :"  these  songs  of  praise  composed  with- 
out authority  by  uninspired  men,  but  to  be  used  in  the 
worship  of  God  by  authority  of  church  council.  By  the 
very  same  assumed  authority  in  council,  Rome  authorizes 
Mass.  By  the  very  same  authority  in  council,  the  church 
of  England  authorizes  her  Prayer-Book,  and  all  the 
mummery  of  her  empty,  vain  ceremonies.  By  this  same 
authority  in  councils  of  the  church,  presumptuously  claimed, 
all  the  abominations  of  the  mother  of  harlots,  all  the 
trumpery  of  ritualism  have  been  introduced  and  sustained 
from  the  days  of  Constantine  till  now.  No  one  claims 
Bible  authority  for  either  Mass,  or  Prayer-Book,  or 
Hymnal.  All  sustained  upon  the  same  pious  (!)  plea  for 
pictures,  crosses,  images — all  to  quicken  and  aid  devotion 
in  the  worship  of  God — and  their  institution  at  the  will  of 
church  council.  "  The  end  sanctifies  the  means  ;"  and  the 
council  determines  what  means  w7ill  promote  the  end. 

But  then,  we  are  told  that  this  is  all  done  "jvM  as  the 
Scottish  General  Assembly  sanctioned  Rouse."  Now  we 
have  seen  that  the  Assembly,  passing  upon  the  Scottish 
version,  passed  upon  a  translation,  comparing,  at  every 
step,  "  with  the  Hebrew  text,  and  former  translations." 
Such  is  never  thought  of  in  the  other  cases.  Watts  was  too 
good  a  man,  and  too  honest,  to  permit  it  to  go  to  the 
world,  that  either  his  imitations  or  hymns  were  to  be 
tested  in  their  adoption  by  church  council,  by  original 
text,  Hebrew  or  Greek. 

That  the  church,  whose  business  it  is  to  see  that  the  law 
shall  go  forth  of  Zion,  and  the  word  of  the  Lord  from 
Jerusalem,  to  every  people,  language,  and  tongue,  may 
supervise  translations  of  the  Bible,  and  authorize  them  as 
safe  translations  for  her  missionaries  to  carry  to  the 
heathen,  whether  in  prose  or  poetry,  to  be  read  or  sung,  is 


7G  PSALMODY. 

a  matter  about  which  there  can  be  no  dispute,  and  abouc 
which  the  question  of  the  right  of  councils  to  authorize  the 
manner  and  matter  of  worship  can  have  as  little  concern. 
This  preparing  and  sending  abroad  the  Bible  in  so  many 
translations  is  a  matter  bearing  very  little  analogy,  and 
certainly  no  parallelism,  to  the  authorizing  of  written 
prayers  or  uninspired  hymns  for  the  use  of  the  church  in 
worship.  But  it  is  like  the  church  preparing  a  metrical 
translation  of  the  Book  of  Psalms  for  the  use  of  her  assem- 
blies worshipping  in  any  other  than  the  Hebrew  language. 
It  is  analogous  to  the  church's  examining  King  James' 
translation,  and  authorizing  it  as  such,  to  be  used  in 
families  and  churches.  It  is  like  authority  competent, 
deciding  upon  translations  of  the  Bible,  whether  that  au- 
thority be  parental  for  the  family,  ecclesiastical  for  the 
church,  civil  for  the  state;  or  whether  in  all,  or  none  of 
them,  is  a  matter  of  little  concern  in  this  discussion. 
Wherever  the  authority  lies,  or  whoever  may  exercise  it, 
this  is  certain :  it  involves  no  such  right  as  the  making  of 
a  new  Bible  in  whole  or  in  part,  for  any  purpose  for  which 
God  made  and  gave  the  Bible.  God  prepared  and  gave 
the  whole  Bible  to  be  read,  studied,  believed,  and  obeyed 
Some  parts  of  the  Bible  He  prepared  to  be  sung,  nave  to 
be  sung,  "authorized  to  be  sung  to  his  praise  in  worship/' 
Has  the  translating  of  the  Bible,  and  the  authorizing  the 
use  of  that  translation  of  the  Bible,  as  the  word  of  God, 
anything  to  do  with  the  question  of  divinely  appointed 
worship,  all  of  which  has  its  appointment  there;  or,  with 
the  right  of  ;ill  to  use  that  Bible,  translated,  or  untrans- 
lated, if  they  can  acquire  a  competent  knowledge  of  the 
original  text?  Is  the  composing  of  hymns  a  parallel  f 
the  translating  of  the  Bible,  or  any  part  of  it,  into  the 
English  language,  prose  or  poetry?  [f  Christ  and  his 
apostles  used  a  translation  of  the  Bible  as  the  word  of 


UNINSPIRED    PRAYER,    PRAISE   AND   PREACHING.      77 

God,  then,  may  not  the  church  send  the  Bible  to  the 
heathen  translated  into  all  their  languages,  without  in- 
volving the  authority  of  making  a  prayer-book  and  hymn- 
book  for  them,  as  if  all  proceeded  upon  the  same  principle? 
Rome  assumes  that  the  scriptures  are  not  to  be  read,  or 
used  by  the  people,  till  authorized  by  the  highest  power  in 
the  church.  Families,  prayer-meetings,  congregations, 
may  not  use  them  without  church  authority.  Poets  may 
scribble  poems,  but  families,  prayer-meetings,  and  congre- 
gations may  not  sing  them  till  authorized  by  "supreme 
judicatory";  then  it  is  the  right  of  all  to  worship  God 
with  the  hymns  authorized  by  church  council.  This  is  the 
assumption:  the  right  to  worship,  not  as  God  has  ap- 
pointed rin  his  word,  but  as  high  church  prerogative  au- 
thorizes. This  is  popish. — Because  every  man,  antecedent 
to  any  church  authority,  interposed,  has  from  God  the 
Bible  addressed  and  given  to  himself,  free  to  use  by  direct 
authority  from  God,  the  Author,  for  every  purpose  for 
which  He  prepared  and  gave  it,  and  in  every  capacity  and 
relation  in  which  it  is  needed,  and  for  which  it  is  "  suited " 
— to  read  it,  search  it,  sing  it  in  God's  praise,  worshipping 
with  -it  in  the  use  of  its  God-given  songs.  Every  family, 
antecedently  to,  and  independently  of,  any  pope,  or  "  su- 
preme judicatory/'  may  use,  read,  and  sing,  and  with  it 
praise  God  in  his  worship.  So  of  man,  individually  or 
socially,  in  all  acts  of  worship.  And  more ;  man,  in  all 
these  conditions  and  relations,  having  the  Bible,  may  by 
it  test  the  sermons  of  the  ministry,  by  it  test  every  act 
and  authorization  of  every  judicatory,  supreme  and  subor- 
dinate, by  original  right  from  God  derived — a  right  with 
which  neither  pope  nor  "  supreme  judicatory "  can  in- 
terfere. 

Now,  this  is  the  sum  of  the  issue  here :   God's  Bible 
commands  all,  individually  and  social lv,  to  praise  him. 
7* 


78  PSALMODY. 

The  family,  the  prayer-meeting,  the  congregation  as- 
sembled, are  commanded  to  sing  praise.  And  for  every 
family  God  has  given  the  Bible  to  be  used  for  all  purposes 
for  which  he  gave  it;  to  be  read  and  to  be  sung  in  the 
worship  of  God  at  the  family  altar.  So,  to  every  prayer- 
meeting  lie  has  given  the  Bible  to  be  used  for  the  same 
purposes,  in  the  social  worship.  And  in  like  manner  to 
every  worshipping  congregation  for  similar  uses.  Then, 
every  family,  prayer-meeting,  congregation,  is  furnished 
by  the  Head  of  the  church  with  "  suitable  "  songs  to  be 
sung,  with  "  authority  "  to  sing  them  and  with  ample  di- 
rections how  they  must  be  sung.  Where  comes  in  the 
church  authority  to  interfere  with  any  use  of  the  Bible  for 
which  God  authorized  it?  Suppose  the  Pope  and  "su- 
preme judicatory  "  had  never  authorized  either  the  reading 
or  singing  of  the  Bible,  and  should  never  do  so ;  what,  in 
all  that,  detrimental  to  the  perfect  right  of  the  people  and 
of  the  church  to  worship  God,  to  pray,  or  praise,  or  read 
his  word?  True,  no  man  may  go  forth  and  preach  this 
Bible,  given  to  all,  to  be  read,  and  searched,  and  sung  by 
all,  till  authorized  by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the 
Presbytery:  then  he  may  go  and  preach  it.  Then  he  may 
go  to  any  gathering  of  the  people,  and  to  them  expound 
that  Bible  in  the  name  and  by  the  authority  of  the  Head 
of  the  church,  whose  ambassador  he  is;  but  he  is  not 
obliged  to  carry  with  him  written  sermons,  or  prayer- 
books,  or  hyrrmak,  prepared  and  authorized  by  either  pope 
or  council.  He  may  go,  carrying  with  him  nothing  from 
the  church  but  the  formal  certificate,  for  order's  sake,  from 

the  ordaining  Presbytery,  of  his  appointment  by  Christ  to 
preach.     lie  may  carry  his   Bible,  received   from  God's 

hand,  and  preach  from  it,  and  read  it,  and  sing  it  with  the 

worshipping  people  to  whom  he  ministers,  and  so  conduct, 
and  perform,  and  exemplify  all  God's  institutions  of  public 


UNINSPIRED   PRAYER,  PRAISE   AND   PREACHING.       79 

wotship,  as  really  and  perfectly  without  any  other  papal 
or  church  authority  enforcing  ritual,  prayer-book,  service 
or  hymnal ;  and  better  than  if  supplemented  and  burdened 
with  them  all. 

Suppo.se,  again,  that  the  "supreme  judicatory"  should, 
on  review  of  her  authorized  hymns,  discover  they  were  un- 
scriptural,  or  otherwise  unpalatable,  or  unfashionable,  and 
withdraw  her  authorization,  and  tell  the  people  and  the 
poet  that  they  are  unauthorized,  and  not  to  be  sung ;  and 
yet,  the  poet  who  penned  them,  and  the  people  who  had 
been  accustomed  to  sing  them  in  worship,  would  choose  to 
sing  them  still — what  then  ?  Would  it  be  wrong  to  sing 
them?  Don't  the  different  sects  reciprocally  sing  each 
other's  hymns,  with  or  without  authority  of  "supreme  ju- 
dicatory"? Or,  should  "supreme  judicatory"  please  to 
re-enact  her  rejected  hymns,  would  that  make  it  right 
again  to  sing  them?  Is  there  any  right  or  wrong  in  the 
matter  to  infringe  a  tranquil  conscience?  Can  the  "  su- 
preme judicatory  "  make  the  same  thing  right  or  wrong  at 
pleasure  ? 

But  further,  here  :  Had  the  "  supreme  judicatory  "  never 
passed  upon  the  said  hymns  at  all,  must  it  have  been 
wrong  for  the  gifted  poet,  and  the  people  for  whom  God 
gifted  him,  to  use  them  in  the  worship  of  God?  And  had 
neither  "unauthorized"  poet  nor  authorizing  "judicatory" 
moved  in  the  matter  at  all,  and  should  they  never,  what 
then  ?  Would  the  people  of  God,  the  whole  church,  the 
whole  world,  have  remained,  and  through  all  time  still  re- 
main, without  matter  of  social  praise  authorized  to  be 
Bung  in  the  worship  of  God?  And  must  God  have  re- 
mained unworshipped  and  unsung  in  psalms,  and  hymns, 
and  spiritual  songs?  Would  not  the  whole  Bible  furnish, 
by  authority  unquestioned,  material  enough  for  social 
chanting  of  God's  praise,  had  he  never  given  a  gifted  poet, 


80  PSALMODY. 

uninspired,  to  the  church,  or  an  edict  of  a  supreme  judica- 
tory?— For  he  has  promised  neither,  nor  is  either  among 
the  gifts  received  by  our  ascended  Lord,  through  which  to 
endow  his  church  with  matter  of  praise.  This  claim  of 
"  supreme  judicatory  "  to  prepare  and  authorize  praise  for 
the  use  of  the  church  is  essentially  usurped  and  popish. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

EXAMINATION  OF  SCRIPTURE  AUTHORITY  CLAIMED  FOR 
MAKING  AND  USING,  IN  THE  FORMAL  WORSHIP  OF  GOD, 
UNINSPIRED    SONGS. 

In  what  we  agree — In  what  we  differ — Demand  of  negative  proof  un- 
reasonable— In  the  true  issue  our  brethren  affirm — Five  affirmative 
Proof-Texts  for  the  Presbyterian  system  of  Psalmody — Our  friends 
argue  both  sides  of  the  true  issue — Irrelevant  verbal  criticism — Appeal 
to  reason  and  argument  from  the  "  stronghold"  texts — Authority  from 
command — A  representative  paragraph  examined — The  leading  point 
of  assumption,  its  identities  and  deductions  therefrom — The  argument 
from  scripture  example — Entrance  into  Jerusalem,  Luke  xix.  38 — ■ 
"Pattern"  for  Presbyterian  hymn-making — The  second  "pattern" 
case  for  so  making,  Acts  iv.  24 — Impromptu  Prayer-meeting,  or 
Committee  on  Revision  of  Bible  Psalms — Commentators — Barnes  and 
Jacobus — Reflections. 

TN  examining  the  foundation  on  which  our  friends  lay 
their  claims  of  right  to  make  their  own  psalms,  hymns, 
and  songs  of  praise,  in  the  worship  of  God,  Ave  invite  at- 
tention to  a  few  preliminaries.  In  all  successful  discussion, 
having  union  in  view,  it  will  be  well  to  know  wherein  we 
agree,  and  where  we  differ.  It  may  be  well  to  know,  also, 
if  anything  can  be  compromised,  and  what. 

We  all  agree  that  we  may  make  our  own  sermons,  and 
preach  them,  without  any  inspiration.  We  all  agree  that 
we  may,  by  the  promised  inditing  of  the  Spirit,  as  peculiar 
to  prayer,  make  our  own  impromptu  prayers;  the  verita- 
ble desires  of  the  heart,  without  pen,  or  book,  or  manual. 
We  all  agree  that  singing  with  the  voice,  from  the  Book, 
many  in  unison,  and  with  the  understanding  and  heart, 
is  an  ordinance  of  religious  worship,  appointed  in  the  word 

81 


82  PSALMODY. 

of  God.  We  all  agree  that  "  the  only  acceptable  way  of 
worshipping  the  true  God  is  instituted  by  himself,  and  BO 
limited  by  his  own  revealed  will,  that  he  may  not  be  wor- 
shipped according  to  the  imaginations  and  devices  of  men, 
or  any  other  way  not  appointed  in  his  word."  We  all 
agree  that  the  songs  of  the  Bible,  divinely  inspired,  not 
only  may  be  sung  in  the  worship  of  God,  but  that  God 
prepared  them,  gave  them,  and  "  authorized  "  them  to  be 
sung.     Thus  far  we  may  as  well  refrain  from  controversy. 

True,  on  one  hand,  the  practice  has  been  confined  to 
the  Book  of  Psalms,  while,  in  principle,  uncompromised  in 
regard  to  the  use  of  other  inspired  songs,  suitable  for 
praise.  It  is  a  remarkable  feature  of  the  providence  of 
the  Head  of  the  church  that  has  led  all  the  psalm-singing 
churches  to  leave,  in  their  organic  law,  the  question  of  the 
use  of  "  other  scripture  songs  "  an  open  one — one  subject 
to  interpretation,  or  application,  as  circumstances  may 
suggest. 

One  thing,  however,  Ave  cannot  ignore.  We  disclaim 
all  authority  and  right  to  make  and  use  uninspired  songs 
of  praise  in  the  formal  worship  of  God.  Here  we  stand 
still,  and  feel  that  we  cannot  proceed  beyond  the  use  of 
the  inspired  songs  of  the  Bible  in  the  worship  of  God,  till 
our  brethren  show  us  the  Divine  way  clearly  marked. 
Here  they  diverge  from  the  way,  or  advance  and  leave  us, 
under  the  assumed  authority  and  right  of  making,  author- 
izing,  and  using  in  wrorship,  songs  uninspired — songs  that 
will  incorporate,  in  their  own  way  of  stating  them,  the 
essential  doctrines  of  the  Bible,  so  as  to  operate  as  a  test 
of  orthodoxy,  as  far  as  in  their  judgments  essentials  are 
concerned. 

Our  brethren  seem  confidently  assured  they  have  a  di- 
vine warrant  Cor  composing  and  Binging  uninspired  songs 
in   worship.     We  as   confidently  believe   they  have  not. 


EXAMINATION   OF   SCRIPTURE   AUTHORITY.  83 

They  affirm.  We  deny.  They  proceed.  We  stand  still. 
They  affirm  the  way  is  open.  And,  for  reasons,  they  invite 
us  to  follow.  We  hear  and  weigh  their  reasons.  We  do 
not  ask  them  to  prove  negatives.  We  are  unwilling  they 
should  ask  us  to  prove  what  neither  they  nor  wre  deny — 
authority  to  sing  Bible  songs. 

And  since  our  brethren  affirm,  and  offer  the  evidence  on 
which  rests  the  assertion  of  their  right  to  make  their  own 
denominational  Presbyterian  Hymnal,  it  is  certainly  our 
privilege  to  cross-examine  their  evidence  in  chief.  Nor  will 
it  be  conceded  here  that  the  order  of  all  honorable  discussion 
shall  be  reversed  by  demanding  of  us  "A  divine  warrant 
for  restricting  the  praise  of  the  church  to  inspired  compo- 
sition/' You  admit  we  have  authority  thus  far.  And 
more :  You  have  affirmed  with  us,  over  and  over  again, 
this  same  authority.  We  then  beg  leave  to  be  excused 
from  undertaking  any  such  absurd  task  as  to  prove  here 
what  nobody  denies.  But  we  are  determined  to  hold  you 
to  your  affirmation  of  your  authority  to  go  beyond  our 
common  ground,  and  use  your  own  homemade  matter  of 
praise.  Nor  shall  we  be  diverted  by  the  common-place 
chicanery  of  your  trained  controversialists,  as  the  following 
specimen  exemplifies : 

"  It  is  true,  indeed,  that  those  texts  (Col.  iii.  16 ;  Eph. 
v.  19,)  have  always  been  viewred  as  strongholds  of  the 
Presbyterian  doctrine,  viz. :  that  it  is  the  duty  and  privi- 
lege of  the  church  to  praise  God,  not  only  with  Psalms, 
but  with  any  other  hymns  and  songs  found  in  the  inspired 
writings  (!)  But  our  brethren  have  endeavored  to  turn 
this  old  Presbyterian  battery  against  us." 

Is  this  not  a  specimen  of  "unfair  artifice,  to  perplex  a 
cause,  and  obscure  the  truth  "?  Does  this  state  either  the 
principle  or  practice  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  ?  Don't 
they  plead  the  right  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  in  her 


84  PSALMODY. 

"  supreme  judicatory,"  to  take  up  the  poems  of  Watts,  of 
Tom  Moore,  of  Walter  Scott,  of  Hannah  Moore,  of  Mrs. 
Hemans,  of  Mrs.  Sigourney — examine,  sanction,  and  sing 
them  to  the  praise  of  God  in  his  worship?  And  are  these, 
and  their  like,  " inspired  writings"?  Inspired  writings] 
Tom  Moore  inspired — or  supreme  judicatory!  Which? 
What  can  our  brethren  mean  when  they  foist  inspiration 
into  the  controversy  in  such  connection? 

Our  brethren  have  another  side,  for  we  are  gravely  told 
that 

"The  principles  on  which  the  Presbyterian  system  of 
psalmody  is  formed,  are  substantially  the  same  as  those 
on  which  all  exposition,  especially  all  lecturing  upon  select 
passages  of  scripture,  is  conducted ;  the  principles  on 
which  ministers  compose  their  prayers,  and  explain  the 
Psalms;  the  principles  on  which  the  church  assumes  the 
immense  responsibility  of  constructing  her  creed  and  cate- 
chisms;  in  a  word,  the  same  principles  by  which  the 
church,  as  all  admit,  assumes  the  control  and  direction, 
under  responsibility  to  God,  of  every  other  part  of  Divine 
worship." 

In  controversy,  as  in  medical  practice,  alterations  are 
sometimes,  from  patients'  tastes,  found  expedient.  Another 
specimen  of  the  first  side  of  the  Presbyterian  principles, 
here.     Again,  they  say: 

"  The  inspired  pattern  for  making  New  Testament 
Psalms  is,  to  group  together  parts  of  the  Psalms,  along 
with  other  inspired  matter,  just  as  Dr.  Watts  and  Presby- 
terians do." 

.Now,  after  all  this  profession  of  "the  Presbyterian  sys- 
tem of  psalmody" — "  the  duty  and  privilege  of  the  church 
to  praise  God,  no!  only  with  Psalms,  but  with  other  hymns 
and  songs  found  in  the  inspired  writinj  rouping  to- 

gether different  parts  of  ( rod's  word,"  still,  the  Presbyterian 


EXAMINATION   OF   SCRIPTURE   AUTHORITY.  85 

way  is,  that  the  "  gifted  poet  may  employ  his  noble  poeti- 
cal talents/'  as  Watts,  by  converting  David,  or  even 
Horace,  into  a  Christian,  as  the  inspiration  of  the  muse 
should  happen  to  lead ;  no  matter  who,  what,  or  how,  if 
sanctioned  by  standing  committee,  or  "supreme  judica- 
tory," the  composition  has  the  Divine  appointment  to  be 
employed  in 'the  worship  of  God.  "The  church  assumes 
the  immense  responsibility, "  and  to  the  word  of  God  we 
arc  referred  for  authority  in  the  assumption  of  such  high 
church  prerogative. 

FIVE   TEXTS    OF    SCRIPTURE    CLAIMED    AS   AUTHORITY    FOR 
THE    PRESBYTERIAN    SYSTEM    OF    PSALMODY. 

These  are  the  Texts,  in  the  order  in  which  they  are 
used  in  the  argument : — 

"How  is  it  then,  brethren?  when  ye  come  together, 
every  one  of  you  hath  a  psalm."     1  Cor.  xiv.  26. 

"Speaking  to  yourselves  in  psalms  and  hymns,  and 
spiritual  songs."  Eph.  v.  19.  "Let  the  word  of  Christ 
dwell  in  you  richly  in  all  wisdom ;  teaching  and  admon- 
ishing one  another  in  psalms  and  hymns,  and  spiritual 
songs,  singing  with  grace  in  your  hearts  to  the  Lord." 
Col.  iii.  16.  On  these,  our  brethren  rest  the  argument 
for  Divine  authority,  for  making  and  using  uninspired 
songs,  in  the  worship  of  God.  The  following  are  used  as 
inspired  pattern  for  making  New  Testament  Psalms: 

11  Saying,  "Blessed  be  the  King  that  cometh  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord;  peace  in  heaven,  and  glory  in  the  highest." 
Luke  xix.  38.  "And  when  they  heard  that,  they  lifted 
up  their  voice  to  God  with  one  accord,  and  said,  Lord  thou 
art  God,  which  hast  made  heaven  and  earth,  and  the  sea, 
and  all  that  in  them  is."   Acts  iv.  24. 

It  will  be  well  here  to  fix  in  our  minds,  definitely,  the 
subject  under  controversy  ;  the  very  thing  affirmed,  and  to 
8 


CO  rSALMODY. 

be  proved  by  the  "stronghold"  texts,  to  which  we  are 
referred  as  establishing  "  the  Presbyterian  doctrine." 
This  is  the  affirmation — the  church  has  authority  to  re- 
ceive uninspired  songs,  composed  by  the  poets,  and  to  pre- 
pare them  as  stated  in  these  words — "She  examines,  and 
where  found  needful,  amends  these  productions,  and  then 
issues  her  sanction  to  their  adoption  in  public  worship." 

Our  friends  here,  in  adjusting  their  stand  point,  from 
which  to  defend  their  stronghold,  and  manage  their 
aggressive  controversy  in  the  use  of  their  affirmative  evi- 
dence, in  the  cause  of  their  Divine  right  of  uninspired 
praise,  show  how  convenient  it  is  to  argue  both  sides,  when 
in  the  wrong  in  controversy.  They  begin  with  an  array 
of  commentaries  to  settle  the  meaning  of  their  leading  text. 
These,  too,  are  all  of  the  hymn  singing  class,  among  which 
we  have  Dr.  Hodge's,  which  says: — 

"  In  1  Cor.  xiv.  26,  where  psalmon  appears  to  mean  such 
a  song  given  by  inspiration,  and  not  one  of  the  Psalms  of 
David."  "  Such,"  adds  a  champion  author,  "  is  the  unani- 
mous testimony  of  these  commentators."  What  do  these 
commentators'  friends  of  uninspired  hymns  mean,  in  giv- 
ing this  interpretation  of  this  "stronghold"  text?  Do 
they  mean  that  all  these  psalms,  hymns  and  songs  of  the 
New  Testament  are,  indeed,  "given  by  inspiration?" 
Certainly,  there  is  no  need  of  such  affirmative  testimony 
here.  All  admit  their  inspiration.  And  then,  what  can 
this  prove?  Does  it  prove  the  Divine  right  of  Presbyte- 
rian supreme  judicatories  to  make  and  authorize  the  use 
of  uninspired  songs,  the  very  matter  of  the  affirmation  in 
this  controversy?  If  Pan],  by  inspiration,  designed  to 
teach  118  our  privilege  and  our  duty  to  Bing  other  inspired 
SOngS,  ill  addition  to  the  Book  of   PsallUS — and    this  seems 

to  be  the  sum  of  all  the  commentaries,  and  arguments 
drawn  from  this  source     isil  not  rather  negative  testimony 


EXAMINATION    OF   SCRIPTURE   AUTHORITY.  87 

against  uninspired  hymns  and  songs  ?  If  commanded  to 
sing  Bible  songs,  that  seems  to  hint,  at  least,  that  we  are 
not  authorized  to  sing  beyond  the  songs  specified.  If  God 
specifically  requires  a  lamb  for  sacrifice,  and  since  no  sacri- 
fice can  be  accepted  without  specific  appointment,  by  what 
legerdemain  is  a  pig  authorized?  Ah,  we  are  just  here 
told,  "  where  there  is  no  law,  there  is  no  transgression  ;" 
and  there  is  no  law  "  restricting "  to  the  lamb  !  So  holy 
mother  demands  proof,  affirmatively,  for  "restricting''  to 
bread  and  wine  in  the  Supper,  and  for  our  wrant  of  affirma- 
tive proof  in  a  negative  issue,  she  asserts  her  right  to  the 
wafer,  and  cries,  when  forbidden?  So,  our  brethren,  ex- 
plaining their  proof-texts,  tell  us  the  psalms  in  question, 
which  Paul  commanded  to  be  sung,  wrere  certainly  inspired; 
but  infer  from  the  command  their  authority  to  make  and 
sing  their  own  uninspired  songs.  May  not  the  envelope 
here,  like  Benjamin's  sack,  wrrap  up  too  much  ?  Joseph's 
cup  was  not  Benjamin's  corn. 

To  prepare  the  way  for  the  best  possible  use  of  their 
"stronghold"  proof  texts,  a  large  amount  of  philological 
skill,  in  very  common-place,  verbal  criticism,  has  been  ex- 
pended by  our  friends,  in  making  plain  things  dark  and 
doubtful.  Every  available  confusion  has  been  thrown 
around  the  meaning  of  "Psalms,  hymns  and  spiritual 
songs."  And  the  confusion  of  the  Septuagint  is  added  to 
make  confusion  more  confused.  After  the  endurance  of 
mountain  labor,  under  the  pressure  of  the  Hebrew  Titles, 
Mizmorim,  Tehillim,  Shirim,  and  the  corresponding  Greek, 
Psalmais,  humnais,  odais — added  to  these  Tehillah,  the 
singular  of  Tehilllm — then  liumnas  and  ainesis,  are  yet 
added,  Negineth,  translated  humnais,  hymns,  still  more,  odais 
pneumatilea is,  and  ode  not  a  spiritual  song/  And  what! 
some  four  or  five  pages  delivered!     After  reading  the  last 


88  PSALMODY.1 

page,  we  are  as  wise  as  wc  were  before  we  waded  through 
this  labyrinth  of  words. 

Well,  we  do  learn  that  the  Septuagint  uses  different 
words  for  the  same  thing,  as  Asma  and  Okie  for  the 
Hebrew7  Shir;  and  also,  that  its  use  of  words  is  not  very 
reliable,  though  it  has  long  held  an  acknowledged  place 
among  translations  of  the  Bible.  Another  thing  we  learn 
by  this  very  circuitous  criticism,  we  are  just  where  we  were 
at  the  beginning  of  the  chapter.  The  Psalms  in  question 
are  proved  to  be  veritable  inspired  writings.  The  sum  of 
the  painful  research  is  given  in  these  words : — 

"  The  two  last  terms,  Jiumnas  and  ode,  are  used  by  the 
Septuagint  to  designate  other  portions  of  the  inspired 
writings;  and  why  may  not  Paul  have  referred  to  those 
other  hymns  and  songs  not  embraced  in  the  Book  of 
Psalms?"  Referring  to  the  inspired  songs  in  Isa.  xlii.  10; 
Deut.  xxxi.  19,  and  Deut.  xxxii.,  it  is  added :  "  Why  may 
not  the  Apostle  have  had  his  eye  upon  such  hmrmai  and 
odai,  '  hymns  and  songs,'  as  these,  as  they  are  found  out- 
side of  the  Book  of  Psalms?  If  he  had  reference  to  such 
as  these,  then  what  becomes  of  the  argument  of  these 
brethren?  Paul's  exhortation  to  sing  'hymns  and  spirit- 
ual songs'  becomes  an  inspired  authority  for  the  Presby- 
terian doctrine  of  psalmody/1 

Now,  it  is  pretty  evident,  even  to  a  tyro,  that  our  friends 
here  do  pretty  clearly  prove  something.  But  what? 
This  is  the  question.  Let  us  see.  Do  they  not  prove,  or 
evidently  labor  to  prove  these  : — 

1.  There  are,  in  the  Bible,  inspired  writings,  called  and 
designated  Psalms,  hymns  and  spiritual  songs, 

2.  That  the  Apostle  Paul,  in  the  proof-texts  before  us, 
did  mean  these  vertable  inspired  writings,  in  his  exhorta- 
tions to  sing  Psalms,  hymns  and  spiritual  songs. 


EXAMINATION   OF   SCRIPTURE   AUTHORITY.  89 

3.  That  this  is  Divine  authority,  for  singing  the  in- 
spired songs  of  the  Bible. 

These  truisms,  denied  by  no  church  in  the  world,  so  far  as 
we  know,  do  not  satisfy  our  friends ;  but  with  a  coup  de  grace, 
most  gracefully,  indeed,  they  close  by  adding:  Becomes  an 
inspired  authority  for  the  Presbyterian  doctrine  of  psalmody  ! 
That  is — for  our  Presbyterian  brethren,  when  arguing  this 
question  of  psalmody,  certainly  believe  their  own  logic — 
"  the  Presbyterian  doctrine  of  psalmody/'  is  to  sing  the 
inspired  writings,  the  songs  of  the  Bible  !  Do  they  wish 
us  to  believe  this  logic?  Paul  commands  to  sing  inspired 
Bible  songs ;  therefore  he  authorizes  Presbyterians  to  make 
and  sing  Presbyterian  hymns,  which  they,  and  everybody 
else,  know  are  not  the  Psalms,  etc.,  designated  by  the 
apostles. 

If  anything  is  proved  by  this  labored  appeal  to  verbal 
criticism,  it  is  this  simply,  and  nothing  more  :  The  apos- 
tle refers,  not  exclusively  to  the  Book  of  Psalms,  but  to 
"  other  inspired  songs  of  the  Bible"  as  well.  There  is  not 
even  an  attempt  to  prove  more. 

APPEAL    TO   REASON  AND    ARGUMENT  FROM    THE    "  STRONG- 
HOLD "    TEXTS. 

Bear  with  us  in  quoting  a  paragraph,  embracing  the 
whole  argument,  drawn  from  the  first  three  texts,  in  the 
order  referred  to,  for  authority  to  make  and  sing  uninspired 
hymns. 

"But  it  is  replied  that  the  churches  of  Ephesus  and 
Colosse  had  in  their  possession  the  Psalms  of  David, 
and  no  other,  therefore  they  would  most  certainly  un- 
derstand the  Apostle  as  referring  to  the  Book  of  Psalms 
alone.'' 

On  this  sentence,  as  we  pass,  we  remark,  1.  It  is  not 
true  that  we  assert,  those  churches  had  David's  Psalms, 
8* 


90  PSALMODY. 

and  had  no  other.  2.  It  is  not  true  that  we  assert,  that 
these  churches  certainly  understood  the  apostle  as  Bpeak- 
ing  of  the  "Book  of  Psalma  alone"  These  churches  had 
the  whole  Old  Testament,  and  may  have  understood  the 
apostle  as  speaking  of  all  the  Psalms  of  the  Bible,  so  far 
as  then  known  to  compose  the  psalmody  of  all  the  churches. 
It  is  farther  affirmed  : 

"  But  it  seems  to  be  forgotten  that  those  churches  were 
recently  formed,  amid  a  heathen  population,  and  in  heathen 
cities :  books  were  scarce,  and  having  to  be  copied  by  the 
hand  on  wax,  lead,  parchment  or  similar  materials,  were 
extremely  expensive ;  and  the  ability  to  read  was  by  no 
means  general." 

In  regard  to  the  import  of  this  sentence,  we  ask  the 
reader  to  notice, 

1.  The  design  of  the  statement,  as  in  aid  of  the  cause  of 
uninspired  hymns.  This  is  the  object  they  have  for  its 
statements. 

2.  These  churches  were  formed  amid  illiterate  brethren  ; 
they  had  few  books;  few  were  able  to  read  the  books  they 
had  ;  therefore,  they  could  know  little,  if  anything,  of  the 
Book  of  Psalms ;  little  of  what  the  Jews  sung  in  their 
worship. 

3.  They  had,  nevertheless,  extensive  knowledge  of  unin- 
spired hymns,  made  by  Christians,  the  "membership"  of 
these  churches,  so  much  and  so  general  that  all  would  at 
once  understand  Paul  as  referring  to  Presbyterian  hymns, 
made  in  the  Presbyterian  way :  by  poet  and  "  supreme 
judicatory." 

4.  Especially,  notice,  how  could  they  know  so  little  of 
Bible  Psalms,  and  so  much  of  uninspired  hymns?  Does 
the  Bible,  reason,  or  common  sense,  or  history,  or  any- 
thing else  make  clear?    Howt 

5.  A  question  here:  Do  our  brethren   mean   to   ignore 


EXAMINATION    OF   SCRIPTURE   AUTHORITY.  91 

the  fact  that  wherever  Paul  went,  throughout  Eastern 
Europe  or  Western  Asia,  he  found  synagogues,  and  in 

them  the  Bible?  To  ignore  the  fact  that  everywhere 
among  the  Jews,  of  those  regions,  the  Septuagint,  in  the 
vernacular  tongue,  that  in  which  the  New  Testament  was 
written,  the  language  in  which  these  very  epistles  were 
written,  was  in  use,  and  had  been  for  about  three  hundred 
years  ?  Indeed  ?  Have  we  Psalm-singers  "  forgotten  " 
that  Paul's  converts  and  organized  churches  were  so  igno- 
rant of  the  Bible,  while  all  were  so  intimately  acquainted 
with  the  hymn-book?  Let  us  not  forget  this.  It  is  so 
essential  to  an  understanding  of  the  argument  here  draw7n 
from  these  stwnghold  texts.  Of  course,  we  should  not  for- 
'get  that  Paul's  converts  and  churches  must  have  been  like 
our  hymn-singing  churches  now,  better  acquainted  with 
their  hymn-books  than  their  Bibles  !  To  such  state  of 
things,  or  to  such  Christians  as  described,  our  brethren's 
theory  will  be  very  agreeable.  Perhaps  they  understand 
the  temper  of  their  readers.  What  a  beautiful  sight! 
See  those  Christians  wending  their  way  to  church ;  each  a 
hymn-book  under  the  arm ;  in  the  pew  not  a  Bible. 
"Ability  to  read  was  by  no  means  general."  Of  course 
they  understood  Paul.  We  would  not  forget,  dear  brethren ; 
we  have  not  "  forgotten  "  the  tendency  of  hymn-singing. 
We  hope  you  will  not  forget. 

But  our  friends  have  a  compensation  for  the  want  of 
books,  and  the  want  of  "ability  to  read"  them.  The 
main  thing  in  the  paragraph  here  follows — the  pivotal 
point  on  which  their  argument  turns. 

"Besides;  when  the  apostle  rebukes  the  Corinthians  as 
follows,  '  Every  one  of  you  hath  a  Psalm  ' — the  common 
interpretation  is,  that  these  Psalms  were  the  fruits  of  the 
gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  then  bestowed  on  the  membership 
of  the  Corinthian  church.     Then,  why  might  not  the  same 


92  PSALMODY. 

divine  influence  have  been  found  at  Ephesus  and  Colosse? 
And  why  may  not  Paul  refer  to  this  class  of  Psalms,  as 
well  as  to  those  of  David?  In  view  of  the  whole  argu- 
ment, it  appears  mod  evident,  as  Dr.  Hodge  remarks,  '  that 
not  only  Psalms,  but  hymns,  as  distinct  compositions,  also 
were  employed/  As  to  the  Septuagint  use  of  the  term, 
when  Isaiah  wTould  predict  the  glorious  triumphs  of  the 
gospel,  he  exclaims — '  Sing  unto  the  Lord  a  new  song 
(humnan  or  hymn),  and  his  praise  from  the  ends  of  the 
earth/  Chapter  xlii.  10.  The  Greek  is  very  expressive — 
'Hymn  unto  the  Lord  a  new  hymn.9  The  hymn  immedi- 
ately follows,  and  though  not  found  in  'the  Book  of 
Psalms,'  Isaiah  exhorts  to  sing  it,  including,-of  course,  all 
similar  hymns;  an  exhortation  or  command  just  as  bind- 
ing upon  the  New  Testament  church  as  any  requirement 
to  '  sing  Psalms '  which  is  found  in  the  book  of  that 
name." 

We  shall  not  follow  the  order  of  the  statements  in  this 
closing  part  of  the  paragraph  quoted.  We  shall  notice 
first,  the  least  important  part  thrown  upon  our  attention. 
The  main  points  last. 

The  reference  to  Isaiah  xlii.  10,  is  a  fair  specimen  of  the 
use  of  the  scripture  testimony  through  the  entire  argument 
for  a  human  psalmody.  The  Septuagint,  translating  Isaiah 
here,  says — "Hymn  unto  the  Lord  a  new  hymn."  This 
new  hymn,  not  being  found  in  the  Book  of  Psalms,  is,  with 
"all  similar"  in  the  Bible,  by  command  of  Isaiah,  to  be 
sung  in  the  New  Testament  churches.  That  is,  fortunately 
the  Septuagint,  translating  the  Hebrew,  shir  and  its  cog- 
nate, says — "Hymn  a  new  hymn;9*  and  from  the  very 
euphony  of  the  sound — "Hymn  a  new  hymn"  hyran- 
Binging  is  proved  by  Isaiah's  command,  as  translated  by 
the  Septuagint! 

Moreover,  we  are  very  particularly  told  this  new  hymn 


EXAMINATION   OF   SCRirTURE   AUTHORITY.  93 

is  not  in  the  Book  of  Psalms,  but  certainly  found  in  Isaiah, 
and  that  it  and  similar  are  meant,  Then,  Isaiah's  hymns 
being  inspired  writings  of  the  Bible,  Ave  seem  to  have  made 
one  step  in  the  progress  of  the  argument  towards  proving 
the  right  of  singing  the  inspired  songs  of  the  Bible  outside 
the  Book  of  Psalms.  But  is  this  even  one  step  in  the  way 
of  proving  the  divine  right  of  a  very  different  thing — the 
Presbyterian  way  of  making  iminspired  .hymns,  and  by 
authority  of  the  "supreme  judicatory"  authorizing  the 
poems  of  Watts,  Moore,  etc.,  to  be  sung  ? 

Again,  this  little  attempt  to  make  an  argument,  without 
the  weight  of  a  feather,  out  of  a  mere  verbal  criticism, 
shows  the  desperate  demand  for  some  shadow  of  a  Bible 
argument.  Yes,  Ave  are  told,  "  the  Greek  is  very  expres- 
sive!"— "Hymn  a  new  hymn"  Of  what  is  this  a  transla- 
tion? The  original  Hebrew,  in  Isa.  xlii.  10,  shir,  the  Sep- 
tuagint  finds,  in  the  opening  of  the  Canticles,  shir  shirim, 
and  translates  by  asma  asmaton,  "  song  of  songs."  Why 
not,  to  be  very  expressive,  say — Hymn  of  Hymns,  which  is 
Solomon's?  Sometimes  Septuagint  verbal  criticism  means 
sillyism  !  How  convincing  the  proof  for  making  and  sing- 
ing uninspired  hymns !  We  are  about  where  Ave  started 
in  seeking  our  "brethren's  Bible  argument  for  their  Xew 
Testament  way.  Beyond  argument  for  using  "  other  in- 
spired songs,"  Ave  have  not  seen  the  shadow  of  testimony. 

THE  LEADING   POINT  OF  ASSUMPTION    IN    THIS  PARAGRAPH, 
ITS    IDENTITIES,   AND    DEDUCTIONS    THEREFROM. 

Any  appearance  of  argument,  in  the  paragraph  before 
us,  is  in  its  identifying  the  apostle's  "rebuke,"  in  1  Cor. 
xiv.  26,  with  his  command  in  Eph.  v.  11),  and  Col.  iii.  16. 
The  Psalms,  hymns  and  spiritual  songs,  the  objects  of  the 
approval  and  command,  being  o'f  the  same  doss — the  fruits 
of  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit — as  the  object  of  the  ki  rebuke," 


9-4  PSALMODY. 

they  were  all  inspired  writings  beyond  the  Book  of  Psalms* 
The  Septuagint's  very  expressive  translation  of  Isaiah  fur- 
nishes the  proof.  Or,  bringing  out  the  concealed  conclu- 
sion, as  in  other  instances,  after  a  circuitous  travel,  di- 
verting the  mind  from  the  premises,  the  conclusion  is 
ambiguously  pronounced.  The  process  may  be  stated 
thus — as  the  apostolical  church  was  endowed  with  extra- 
ordinary spiritual  gifts,  among  which  was  that  of  enabling 
the  whole  membership  to  compose  inspired  songs ;  the 
church  now,  following  the  example  of  apostolical  times, 
may,  in  her  "supreme  judicatory,"  do  what  the  church 
did  by  the  gift  of  inspiration,  authorize  the  use  of  unin- 
spired hymns,  not  only  outside  the  Book  of  Psalms,  but 
outside  the  inspired  songs  of  the  Bible.  Can  we  be  mis- 
taken here  in  stating  assumption,  argument  or  conclusion  ? 
We  have  noticed,  in  chapter  iii.,  this  high  church  pre 
rogative,  so  arrogantly  assumed.  We  shall  now  trace  the 
process  by  which  the  conclusion  is  reached.  In  analyzing 
the  process  of  the  argument  before  us,  we  may  notice — 

1.  The  assumption  that  the  Psalms  of  1  Cor.  xiv.  2G 
were  inspired — they  were  the  fruits  of  the  extraordinary 
gifts  of  the  Spirit. 

2.  The  assumption  that  the  Psalms,  hymns  and  spiritual 
songs  of  Eph.  v.  19  and  Col.  iii.  16  were  of  the  same  class, 
inspired  Psalms,  "  as. well  as  those  of  David." 

3.  The  assumption  that  in  Eph.  and  Col.  Paul  exhorts 
to  sing  the  songs  thus  composed  under  the  Spirit  of  inspi- 
ration— impromptu  Psalms,  hymns  and  spiritual  songs, 
given  by  the  Spirit  for  the  occasion. 

4.  The  assumption  that  these -examples,  and  Paul's  com- 
mand authorize  the  Presbyterian  way — the  composition  of 

uninspired    poets,    authorized    by    the    prerogative    of    the 

"supreme  judicatory"  of  the  church. 
The  question  is  suggested  here,  as  in  all  cases  of  illogical 


EXAMINATION   OF   SCRIPTURE   AUTHORITY.  95 

reasoning,  are  the  premises  well  laid?  Is  the  conclusion 
warranted  by  the  premises?  If,  for  premises,  we  have  un- 
reasonable or  false  assumptions,  and  then  from  these  we 
have  forced  and  illogical  conclusions,  must  not  the  argu- 
ment be  utter  failure? 

In  Corinth  "  every  one  had  a  Psalm. "  Without  a  miracle 
how  could  every  one  have  a  Psalm,  if  every  one  of  these 
illiterate  people,  as  is  assumed,  made  his  own  Psalm? 
But  to  meet  the  case,  as  on  the  other  hand  assumed — "  few 
able  to  read" — a  miracle  is  assumed  for  the  occasion  and 
for  the  argument.  The  gift  of  inspiration  is  given  to  a 
whole  congregation  of  illiterate  people — all  inspired  to 
make  extempore  Psalms,  and  sing  them!  That  cuts  the 
gordian  knot.  Grand  as  the  immaculate  conception  !  A 
miracle  by  which  every  one  was  full  of  inspired  Psalms, 
overflowing,  so  that  when  the  apostle  admonished  to 
"sing,"  they  all  understood  him  to  mean,  not  to  sing  any- 
thing known,  but,  by  their  miraculous  gift,  to  make  for 
the  occasion ;  just  to  open  their  inspired  lips,  and  all  at 
once,  in  universal  jargon,  Psalms  would  flow  in  streams 
out  of  all  their  inspired  mouths,  each  differing  in  matter 
and  sentiment  from  the  other ;  or,  why  inspire  all,  when 
otherwise  one  inspired  poet  would  have  sufficed,  and  Paul's 
"  rebuke  "  been  avoided  ? 

This  is  the  argument : 

"Besides,  when  the  apostle  rebukes  the  Corinthians  as 
follows:  'Every  one  of  you  hath  a  Psalm/  the  common  in- 
terpretation is,  that  these  Psalms  were  the  fruits  of  the 
gifts  of  the  Spirit  then  bestowed  on  the  membership  of  the 
Christian  church."  This  being  imagined  and  assumed  in 
argument,  one  stretch  farther  of  imagination  beyond  what 
is  written,  and  the  case  is  made  out  thus:  "Then,  why 
might  not  the  same  Divine  influence  have  been  found  at 
Ephesus  and  Colosse?"     Of  course,  hero,  unable  to  fur- 


96  TSALMODY. 

nLsh  the  shadow  of  an  argument  to  prove  the  truth  of  an 
affirmation,  the  demand  to  prove  a  negative — "Whj 
might  not?"  We  shall  stale  why  not  in  regard  to  both 
affirmations.  God,  by  his  Spirit,  never  gave  any  such 
gifts  for  any  such  purposes,  both  disgraceful  and  scandal- 
ous, subjecting  the  actors  to  public  "  rebuke.''  God  is  not 
the  Author  of  confusion.  But  this  whole  business  of  every 
one  coming  to  the  worship  of  God  with  a  Psalm,  as  - 
was  confusion  not  of  God. 

We  may  be  asked :  If  the  Bible  Psalms  were  brought, 
and  no  miraculous,  or  extraordinary,  gifts  in  the  case,  what 
better  upon  this  hypothesis?  Would  not  the  confusion 
have  been  the  same,  and  as  justly  exposed  to  rebuke? 

We  answer — 

1.  This  is  the  only  reasonable  hypothesis  on  which  the 
membership  could  have  merited  "  rebuke." 

2.  This  is  the  only  reasonable  hypothesis  on  which  Paul 
could  be  justified  in  administering  the  "  rebuke." 

3.  On  this  hypothesis  the  Holy  Spirit  stands  exonerated 
from  all  responsibility  for  confusion  or  exposure  t 

buk 

The  disorderly  people,  under  wrong  impulses,  were  alone 
to  blame.  They  did  all  this  through  their  own  misguided 
and  ignorant  zeal.  They  abused  the  order 
As  any  church  members  might  do  this,  and  the  Holy  - 
not  be  the  Author  of  the  confusion,  or  of  the  animus  that 
prompted  it!  We  say,  the  Holy  Spirit  did  not  give  that 
afflatus,  that  gift,  or  fruit  of  such  gift,  that  led  to  such  dis- 
order and  .-caudal.     On  the  other  hand,  ir*  those  illil 

e  all  and  linarj  influ- 

3]  'rit,  moved  by  the  B  inspirat; 

at  the  same  time,  all   in  the  same  way,  to  act  thofl 
pore  performances,  the  Spirit  was  then  the  Author 
confusion.    And  what  business  had  even  Paul  to  "rebuke" 


EXAMINATI  BEPTURE   AUTHORITY.  97 

either  the  Holy  Spirit  or  his  fruits?  For,  we  are  called 
to  remember  that  all  this  is  charged  to  "  the  fruits  of  the 
gifts  of  the  Spirit  then  bestowed."  "By  their  fruits  ye 
shall  know  them." 

The  whole  argument  drawn  from  these  passages  for 
hymn-making,  by  the  entire  membership  of  the  church, 
belongs  to  inventive  imagination,  in  the  absence  of  all 
Bible  argument.  By  the  consent  of  all,  these  churches  in 
question  had  and  knew  the  Bible,  and  must  have  known 
the  Bible  Psalms,  hymns,  and  spiritual  songs.  That  they 
had  any  other,  knew  any  other,  or  used  any  other,  no 
mortal  can  furnish  the  shadow  of  affirmative  p>roof.  To 
demand  of  us  negative  proof  is  concession  to  the  badness 
of  the  cause,  affirming  without  evidence 

THE    ARGUMENT    FROM    SCRIPTURE    EXAMPLE. 

We  leave  the  three  texts  considered,  from  which  our 
friends  draw  direct  authority,  by  command,  to  make  and 
sing  uninspired  hymns,  and  turn  to  their  pattern 
after  which  they  make  and  sing  them. 

Approved  example  is  certainly  a  scriptural  form  of  es- 
tablishing Divine  authority.  But  caution  is  suggested 
here.  Approved  example  for  one  thing,  or  one  class  of 
things,  may  not  be  good  authority  for  a  very  different 
thing,  or  for  a  very  different  class  of  thinga 

r  with  us  in  making  a  quotation  from  one  of  the 
the  champion  of  this  controversy,  whose 
spear-handle  is  likv  earn,  and  in  who- 

the  weapons  of  his  antagonists  are  as  the  slingstones  of 
mere  boy- : 

ample,  there  is  not  a  solitary  instance  tn 
the  New  Testament  of  tii:  the  Psa: 

David  in  litj  ml     On  the  contrary,  th< 

used  the  B  Psalma  in  quite  a  different  mode  in  the 

9 


OS  PSALMODY. 

only  two  cases  iii  which  they  employed  tliem  in  social 
praise.  One  of  these  is  Luke  xix.  38.  The  disciples  took 
part  of  a  verse  from  Psalm  cxviii.,  but  sung  it  with  alter- 
ations adapted  to  their  circumstances.  The  second  case  is 
in  Acts  iv.  24.  The  beginning  of  the  second  Psalm  is 
sung  by  Peter,  John,  and  their  company — then  an  addition, 
in  the  beginning — then  a  narrative  of  what  David  spoke — 
then  an  application  to  Herod,  Pontius  Pilate,  etc., — then 
an  enlargement  by  considering  the  hand  of  God  in  the 
whole,  and  finally  the  song  concludes  with  desires  suited 
to  their  circumstances.  This  is  an  inspired  pattern  for 
making  New  Testament  Psalms.  It  groups  together  parts 
of  the  Psalms  along  with  other  inspired  matter,  just  as  Dr. 
Watts  and  Presbyterians  do."  In  another  connection  it 
is  added — "  in  composing  hymns,  agreeably  to  the  examjrie 
in  Acts  iv.  24,  of  a  song  of  praise  gathered." 

It  is  remarkable  how  much  dogmatical  assurance  we 
have  from  our  brethren  in  all  their  efforts  to  furnish  evi- 
dence of  the  truth  of  their  leading  affirmative — The  Divine 
authority  for  making  uninspired  hymns  for  divine  worship. 
The  fact  that  the  New  Testament  records  no  instance  of 
singing  "in  literal  form,"  proves  that  making  in  vn 
form  is  a  divine  right!  Paul  and  Silas  sang.  The  record 
don't  say  they  sung  the  4Gth  Psalm,  nor  quote  for  our 
eyes ;  therefore  they  made  a  hymn  for  the  occasion  ;  and 
we  are  gravely  asked  to  prove  they  did  not!  I#4^ere  not 
as  much  evidence  that  the  Psalms  of  the  Bible  were  sung 
in  literal  form,  in  all  the  instances  in  which  singing  God's 
praise  in  worship  is  referred  to  in  the  New  Testament,  as 
that  these  two  are  examples  of  hymn-making t  For,  in 
neither  of  the.-''  is  there  shadow  of  evidence  that  there  was 
hymn-making  at  all.  In  one,  not  the  shadow  of  evidence 
that  there  was  singing,  oven.     Of  this  again. 

We  are   here  told    that   Watts  and    Presbyterians  do 


EXAMINATION   OF   SCRIPTURE   AUTHORITY.  99 

"just  as"  apostles  did  in  these  instances.  Now,  Ave  know 
certainly  just  what  Watts  and  Presbyterians  do;  for  their 
ways  and  doings  are  before  our  eyes,  and  before  the 
world.  And  we  know,  as  well,  they  do  not  even  attempt 
to  do  what  the  apostles  did,  as  our  friends  say.  Watts 
composed,  by  his  "poetical  talent,"  uninspired  matter.  He 
did  not  "group  together  Psalms  and  other  inspired  matter" 
He  did  not  pretend,  even,  to  translate.  He  may  have 
sometimes  quoted  from  the  Bible,  as  from  any  other  book. 
But  here,  in  the  instances  referred,  every  word  of  the 
Psalm,  or  song,  or  hymn,  or  matter  composed  and  recorded 
by  the  apostles,  is  certainly  the  inspired  word  of  God. 
Did  the  apostles  and  Watts  do  the  same  thing?  We 
might  leave  the  matter  here. 

Face  to  face  we  shall  meet,  with  our  friends,  these  "  two 
cases  "  of  "  inspired  pattern." 

First,  the  one  from  Luke  xix.  38.  Come,  now,  reader, 
with  us  to  the  hill  over  against  this  scene  recorded  by 
Luke.  Let  us  adjust  our  camera.  Let  us  take  a  deliber- 
ate panorama  view  of  that  life-scene,  as  it  passed  on  that 
day  of  Christ's  entrance  into  Jerusalem,  and  that  grand 
procession  of  apostles,  and  disciples,  and  multitudes  of 
believers,  and  men,  and  women,  and  children,  and  confused 
mass  of  friends  and  the  unfriendly — such  a  march !  Such 
an  excited  mass!  Such  a  tumultuous  throng  and  noisy 
multitude!     Such,  perhaps,  Jerusalem  never  saw  ! 

What  are  they  all  doing?  See  them,  strewing  palms, 
and  garments  all  along  the  way  !  All,  all  shouting  huzzas 
and  hosannas!  On,  on  moves  the  jubilant,  shouting 
throng  !  Every  eye  turned  to  the  son  of  David.  The 
multitudes  before  and  behind,  shouting  at  the  top  of  their 
voices!  Lo !  Just  then,  some  poet  laureate  is  seen  in 
conspicuous  position,  on  some  elevation,  with  reporter's 
apparatus,  and  with  one  wave  of  his  poetic  wand,  stays 


100  PSALMODY. 

and  stills  the  tumult  and  the  march.  Then  and  there,  in 
time  for  briefness,  unparalleled  in  the  history  of  steno- 
graphy, he  gathers  from  Ps.  exviii..  and  from  various 
other  passages  of  holy  writ,  arranges,  and  writes — as  in 
those  days  of  impromptu  hymn-making,  they  could  write 
and  dispatch  business — and  reads  out  line  by  line,  to  the 
silent,  listening,  waiting  multitude,  before  and  behind, 
every  word,  and  distinctly,  so  as  to  be  heard  by  all  en- 
gaged in  this  "social  praise." — And  then,  after  being  exam- 
ined, amended  and  approved  by  the  Master  on  the  colt,  in 
whom,  at  that  time,  was  lodged  all  the  power  of  supreme 
judicatory,  now,  the  Presbyterian  way — all,  all  sang  this 
new-made,  New  Testament,  uninspired  Psalm  !  Made,  too, 
just  as  Presbyterians  do  now  !  An  apostolical  New  Testa- 
ment hymn  ! — Our  friends  say  it  was  a  Psalm !  And  we 
don't  know  whether  it  was  psalm,  hymn,  or  song !  For 
the  Bible  don't  tell  us  what  it  was;  and  our  friends  had 
affirmed,  and  promised  the  proof  that  while  Psalm  might 
mean  inspired  Psalm,  yet  hymn  and  song  mean  human 
composition,  and  here  we  have  the  example,  the  pattern 
for  making  them. — Here,  made  impromptu,  for  the  occa- 
sion, and  "beyond  controversy,  sung  in  social praisi ." 

Now,  good  friends,  seriously,  when  you  are  done  looking 
for  yourselves  at  this  pattern  picture,  this  example  for 
making  uninspired  hymns,  by  poet  and  supreme  judicatory, 
ask  yourselves — Wherein  are  the  example  and  copy  like? 
anybody  believe  that  uninspired  poets  ever  composed 
odes,  |  -      salms,  hymns,  songs  in  any  such  way,  in  any 

Buch  tumult,  in  any  such  circumstances,  and  impromptu? 
— I  hit  <>n  parade,  in  procession  and  triumphal  march  amid 
thoutS  and  huzzas  of  a  confused,  moving  throng? 
But  it' that  were  not  a  sober,  calm,  thoughtful 
hymn-composing  occasion,  and  one  on  which  the  hymn- 
making  multitude  and  a]  re  not  in  hymn-eompos- 


EXAMINATION   OF   SCRIPTURE   AUTHORITY.  101 

ing  mood,  what  then?     What  is  here  .spread  out  before 
our  scene-contemplating  view? 

Borne  things  were  not  exhibited,  nor  exemplified  on  that 
very  exciting  march  and  entrance  into  Jerusalem. 

1.  That  was  not  family  worship  ;  though  in  such  wor- 
ship some  Christians  do  engage  in  social pr 

2.  It  was  not  a  prayer-meeting,  since  Christ  did  not, 
thus  mounted,  attend  the  upper  room  meetings  "with  the 
women,  the  doors  being  shut ;"  "  though  Christians  there 
do  usually  unite  in  social  prai 

3.  It  was  not  the  Synagogue  worship;  for  that  was  not 
like  a  portable  tent  that  could  be  pitched  anywhere  on  a 
march  like  this,  just  at  the  entrance  of  Jerusalem. 

4.  It  was  not  the  temple  service;  nor  yet,  any  kind  of 
religious  service,  or  gathering  where  the  social  worship  of 
God  was  known  to  be  observed.  It  must  have  been  some 
sui  generis  occasion,  calling  for  this  sui  generis  Presbyte- 
rian way  of  uninspired  hymn-making,  impromptu,  and 
singing  with  the  same  breath  !  Illustrious  example  !  Yes 
— to  be  copied  to  the  end  of  the  world  ! 

To  say  that  the  impassioned,  impromptu  shouts  of  the 
multitude  in  that  extraordinary  triumphal  entrance  of 
Christ  into  Jerusalem,  is  a  pattern  for  anything  in  the 
instituted  ordinances  of  religious  worship,  is  not  only  a 
trifling  with  religious  things,  but  ludicrous.  Let  us  then 
see,  what  did  occur  on  that  march. 

1.  The  occasion  itself  was  extraordinary,  and  unlike 
anything  in  the  ordinary  worship  of  God  in  his  church; 
and  cannot  exemplify  the  ordinance  of  social  praise. 

2.  The  multitudes,  led  by  the  excitement — or  if  it  may 
please — the    inspiration     of    the    extraordinary    oc 
prompting  t<>  Bhout  huzzas,  were  led  by  no  one  as  an  offi- 
cial leader  in  Divine  worship  ;  their  minds  not  solemnized, 
or  even  thinking  of  any  kind  of  formal  religious  worship 


102  PSALMODY. 

at  all,  they  were  perhaps  only  irregularly  shouting  aloud 
and  repeating  Bible  phrases  memorized,  or  caught  up  one 
from  another. 

3.  Or,  many  in  the  multitudes  may  have  broken  out 
into  singing  from  memory ;  from  these  others  might  join  in 
the  song,  and  so  shout  and  sing  aloud. 

4.  We  have  here  only  the  inspired  historian's  brief  out- 
line of  what  was  done,  said  or  sung.  That  outline  narra- 
tive, neither  by  Luke  nor  one  of  the  other  Evangelists, 
hints  even  that  the  things  said  or  sung  were  composed  by 
the  A]:>ostles  as  uninspired  hymns,  and  then  and  there,  as 
from  their  pen,  for  the  first  time  repeated  and  sung  by  the 
multitude  in  social  praise. 

5.  And  then — every  word  here  recorded  by  Luke, 
whether  psalm,  hymn,  or  song — whether  said,  recited, 
vociferated  or  sung,  is  divinely  inspired.  It  may  be  like 
many  another  thing — may  be  a  pattern  for  many  things — - 
one  thing  can  never  be  said  of  it,  with  truth  or  good  sense 
— that  this  is  "just  what  Dr.  Watts  and  Presbyterians  do," 
in  making  New  Testament  uninspired  hymns  and  songs. 

Absolutely,  neither  Watts  nor  any  Presbyterian  ever 
made  hymns  for  social  praise,  in  any  such  tumultuous 
throng.  Nor  did  any  such  throng  ever  shout  out,  in  uni- 
son, extempore,  uninspired  hymns  to  be  sung  in  "social 
praise ;"  nor  do  hymns  spontaneously  make  themselves  in 
any  such  way  !  Rather,  were  not  every  one  of  your  hymns 
made  deliberately  at  your  desks,  pen  in  hand,  brain  and 
mind  Composed,  all  their  powers  taxed,  hushed  and  sub- 
dued in  sober  thought?  Brethren,  you  may  as  well  quote 
as  divine  authority  for  uninspired  hymn-making,  "as 
Presbyterians  do,"  these  words  of  Dan.  iii.  23,  "An<i  these 
threi  men,  Shadrach,  Mesheeh  and  Abednego  fell  down" — - 

We    are    willing    to    meet,    with    all    serene    gravity,  every 

Berious   and   grave  argument.     But  when   you  deal  in 


EXAMINATION    OF   SCRIPTURE   AUTHORITY.  103 

ludicrous  fiction,  don't  expect  unremitting  long  faces,  or 
"  put-on  "  gravity. 

The  champion  of  the  cause  of  impromptu  hymn-making 
on  the  march,  amid  procession  and  throng,  by  a  little 
shifting  of  the  scene,  may  tell  us  that  the  disciples  had  this 
triumphal  psalm  all  previously  collected,  compiled, 
"grouped,"  arranged,  prepared  for  the  occasion,  and  previ- 
ously adapted  to  the  circumstances.  A  good  beginning 
for  the  poetic  illiterate  fishermen !  And  then,  the  learned 
Physician,  Luke,  only  gives  an  outline  sketch  of  the  scenes 
and  occurrences  of  that  memorable  day ;  and  consequently 
as  the  uninspired  psalm  was  not  intended  for  the  sacred 
record,  it  is  not  extant  I 

This  is  about  as  plausible  a  fiction  as  any  other  invented 
to  sustain  the  cause  of  this  wonderful  "pattern"  theory  of 
uninspired  psalm-making,  or  inspired  psalm-making,  "  as 
Presbyterians  do."  Since  after  all,  as  the  psalm  was 
grouped,  in  its  being  lost  no  loss  can  be  sustained — for  we 
are  gravely  told  in  these  remarkable  words — "  This  is  an 
inspired  pattern  for  making  New  Testament  psalms.  It 
groups  together  parts  of  psalms,  along  with  other  inspired 
matter,  just  as  Dr.  Watts  and  Presbyterians  do." 

Then,  there  was  nothing  in  it  but  what  is  in  the  Bible 
somewhere,  "  other  inspired  matter,  and  the  cxviii.  Psalm." 
Quotations  from  scripture,  would  be  scripture  still.  Yet 
there  seems  to  be  a  great  loss — for  here  in  this  "pattern" 
lies  the  secret  of  the  art  of  "  using  scripturally  the  Psalms." 
How,  or  on  what  principle,  was  this  grouping  together  con- 
ducted? Inspired  matter  grouped  from  all  parts  of  the 
Bible,  and  appended  to  the  defective  Psalms,  not  one  of 
which  was  fit  for  Apostles  to  use  "in  LITERAL  forms,"  is, 
in  these  "two  cases"  only,  found  in  the  New  Testament 
And  now,  the  very  pattern  itself  lost !  Only  a  meagre 
sketch  of  some  of  its  parts  extant !     Lost !     Like  the  Lost 


104  PSALMODY. 

Arte,  this  "  pattern "  psalm,  lost  with  all  the  New  Testa- 
ment psalms,  sung  at  Corinth,  Ephesus  and  Colosse,  said 
to  be  used  by  the  Christians  for  many,  many  centuries, 
must  be  a  loss. 

To  have  exhumed  from  the  historical  debris  of  the  ages 
tills  one  lost  psalm — this  inspired  and  yet  uninspired  "pat- 
tern "  psalm  of  which  all  Presbyterian  psalms  are  exact 
copies — this  psalm,  which,  it  may  be  presumed,  was  called 
by  the  first  singers,  "Hymn  of  the  Grand  Entrance" — this 
would  be  the  desideratum  !  O,  what  inscrutable  providence 
has  hid  from  the  ages  the  better  psalms,  these  apostolical 
psalms  of  "pattern"  value,  and  yet  preserved  so  carefully 
and  transmitted  through  the  centuries  these  inferior  Bible 
Psalms,  not  one  of  which  seems  to  be  fit  for  social  praise, 
till  their  literal  form  shall  be  changed  and  a  regenerating 
process  pass  over  them  by  Presbyterian  hands.  Could  our 
brethren  sing  Luke  ii.  9-14,  in  literal  form,  without  group- 
ing in  their  way  ? 

THE  SECOND  PATTERN  CASE  FOR  HYMN-MAKING,  Acts  IT.  24. 

This  second  case,  of  the  only  two,  in  which  the  Apostles 
employed  the  Book  of  Psalms  "in  social  praise,"  "as  Pres- 
byterians do,"  is  the  more  important  as  it  is  the  last  wit- 
ness summoned  to  prove  for  our  brethren  the  Divine 
authority  for  making  and  singing,  in  the  formal  worship 
of  God,  uninspired  hymns.  If  this  fail  thorn,  they  have 
not,  in  a  single  text  in  the  Bible,  the  shadow  of  authority 
for  their  doctrine  on  Psalmody.  Let  us  patiently  hear 
their  own  use  of  this  witness  on  the  stand.     They  Bay: 

"The  beginning  of  the  Second  Psalm  is  sung  by 
Peter,  John,  and  their  company — then  an  addition, 
in  the  beginning — then  a  narrative  of  what  David 
Spoke — then  an  application   to  Herod,  Pontius    Pilate,  etc., 

then  an  enlargement,  by  considering  the  hand  of  God  in 
! 


EXAMINATION  OF   SCRIPTURE   AUTHORITY.  105 

the  whole,  and  finally  the  song  concludes  with  desires 
suited  to  their  circumstances.  This  is  an  inspired  pattern 
for  making  New  Testament  psalms." 

This  is  the  sum  of  the  evidence,  summed  up  by  the  skill 
of  a  practised  tactician,  in  which  there  is  not  one  word  of 
truth  as  warranted  by  the  testimony.  We  have  seldom,  if 
ever,  noticed  in  the  same  narrow  space  more  antic  carrica- 
ture  of  the  word  of  God,  greater  per  version  and  misappli- 
cation, more  ludicrous  statements  and  assumptions,  more 
desperate  torture  of  the  plain  statements  of  -the  Bible,  by 
wresting  and  dragging  them  violently  into  the  cause  of  a 
controversy  which  should  never  appeal  to  the  Scriptures  at 
all,  but  to  popular  feeling,  popular  sentiment,  popular 
taste  only,  whence  all  its  argument  really  comes.  Ludi- 
crous, we  said ;  yes,  for  1.  To  say  that  here  is  a  case  of 
singing  an  uninspired  psalm,  made  for  the  occasion,  by 
one  or  by  a  company,  by  somebody  or  nobody,  is  ludicrous. 

2.  To  say  that  is  a  'pattern  case  of  Presbyterian  psalm- 
making,  is  more  ludicrous  still. 

3.  The  description  given  of  this  new  'psalm-singing  and 
making  at  the  same  time,  by  the  same  company,  is  most  lu- 
dicrous of  all — is  sublimely  ludicrous. 

In  the  light  of  common  sense,  let  us  look  after  the  plain 
facts,  as  stated  in  Acts  iv.  24-31.  We  have  in  this  pas- 
sage a  plain  case,  plainly  stated  of  extempore  social  prayer, 
just  that  much  expressed,  and  not  one  word  more,  instead 
of  social  praise-making.  Common  sense  reads  this  in  this 
passage. 

1.  In  the  affirmation  stated  in  the  very  words  of  the 
original  Greek,  Epx>,  used  in  the  25th  verse,  means  to  say, 
never  to  sing.  This  veil)  is  used  in  the  New  Testament 
about  1,000  time?;  here  tortured  to  sing. 

Didomai,  in  the  29th  verse,  which  means  to  grant,  is  used 
some  400  times  in  the  New  Testament,  and  never  once  to 


106  PSALMODY. 

sing.     Deamai,  in  the  31st  verse,  is  used  twenty-one  times 
always  meaning  to  pray,  never  to  sing. 

2.  Our  translators  faithfully  render  every  word  to  mean 
prayer  and  not  singing ;  and,  indeed,  every  word  in  the 
entire  paragraph,  besides  those  specified,  to  accord  with 
this  specific  meaning.  Read  them,  "And  said,"  said  what? 
"  Lord,  thou  art  God  " — beginning  with  adoration.  Then, 
"  Now,  Lord,  behold,"  using  in  the  body  of  the  prayer  the 
veritable  language  of  supplication.  And  still  more  defi- 
nitely they  said,  "  Grant  unto  thy  servants."  Then,  as  if 
to  settle  all  doubt  or  evasion,  the  record,  as  translated,  says, 
"And  when  they  had  prayed  " — when  they  had  done  pray- 
ing— when  prayer  was  over — "  the  place  was  shaken."  Then, 

3.  The  commentators  governed  by  common  sense  all 
agree  that  this  was  a  case  of  social  praxjer.  And,  more: 
even  hymn-singing  commentators  agree  here,  and  we  cite 
no  other,  Gill,  Scott,  Henry,  The  Comprehensive,  etc.,  all 
agree  with  us.  Not  one  of  them  gives  a  hint  of  uninspired 
hymn-making  or  singing.  This  is  reserved  for  a  desperate 
champion  of  the  controversial  quill  and  endorsers,  and  for 
the  desperate  cause  of  finding — pardon  us — of  inventing 
some  form  of  Scriptural  countenance  for  such  calling.  But 
what  do  the  princes  commentators  of  our  own  brethren  Bay 
of  this  "  example  of  inspired  pattern  "  for  uninspired  Psalm- 
making?  What  do  their  own  Barnes  and  their  own 
Jacobus  say?  These  are  recent  commentators.  Their 
issues  have  appeared  since  the  in  coition  of  this  "  pattern  n 
plan  of  hymn-making.  These  authors  are  not  visionary 
scribblers.  They  were  not  engaged  in  the  professional 
business  of  wresting  the  Scriptures  into  shapeless  carrica- 
tures,  Ludicrous  enough  to  excite  the  laughter  of  the  Infidel 
into  a  roar. 

Barnes  says,  commenting  on  Acts  iv.  24-3]  : 

"  To  lift  up  the  voice  to  Oodt  means  simply,  they  prayed 


EXAMINATION   OF   SCRIPTURE   AUTHORITY.  107 

to  him."  Yes,  "simply  means,"  what  is  obvious  to  every 
mind  free  from  partizan  bins.  At  the  close  of  the  para- 
graph, he  says  on  verse  31  : 

"And  when  they  had  prayed." — "  The  event  which  fol- 
lowed was  regarded  by  them  as  an  evidence  that  God 
heard  their  prayer." — "  A  similar  instance  of  an  answer  to 
prayer  by  an  earthquake  is  recorded  in  Acts  xvi.  25." 

Jacobus  on  the  passage  begins  with  a  caption  thus  : 

"  The  Prayer  of  the  Whole  Church." — "  It  is  plain 
that  some  one  of  them  led  in  prayer,  in  which  all  the  as- 
sembly joined.  It  is  said,  They  lifted  up  their  voice — one 
voice  leading  many  hearts — '  with  one  accord/  "  Again, 
"  The  prayer  addresses  Jehovah  as  absolute  Governor." 
Again,  he  says,  commenting  on  Peter's  prayer,  verse  26  : 
"And  grant."  "  They  do  not  pray  for  the  destruction  of 
their  enemies."  But  they  pray  only  for  what  their  Great 
High-Priest  had  asked.  "  This  accordingly  was  granted 
them  as  the  substance  of  their  prayer."  "All  they  asked 
for  was  the  Divine  signature  to  their  work."  On  verse  31st : 

"Result  of  the  Prayer." — "  Immediately,  and  as  a 
manifest  answer  to  their  prayers,  not  the  earth  only,  but 
also  heaven  shook  that  place  of  prayer."  The  next  chap- 
ter is,  indeed,  a  wonderful  record  of  what  they  were  en- 
abled to  do  in  direct  answer  to  this  prayer." 

What  a  contrast  betwixt  the  views  of  these  candid  com- 
mentators, who  had  no  end  to  subserve  but  simple  truth, 
and  the  views  of  controversialists,  whose  object  is  to  mould 
a  pattern  for  uninspired  hymn-making.  A  contrast  as 
bold  as  betwixt  candor  and  chicanery,  sense  and  carica- 
ture, of  the  plain  teachings  of  the  word  of  God. 

The  second  and  more  ludicrous  aspect  of  this  caricature 
— this  pattern  case  of  Presbyterian  hymn-making: 

Here  curiosity  prompts  the  inquiry,  if  not  the  smile, 
Who  gathered,  grouped,  arranged,  cohiposed,  penned,  and 


108  PSALMODY. 

set  to  music  this  new-born  psalm,  in  singing  which  a  whole 
congregation  joined  ?  And  then  how?  The  composing  of 
praise,  or  psalm-making,  by  a  multitude  with  one  accord, 
is  an  absurdity,  contrary  to  the  very  nature  of  the  ordi- 
nance of  praise.  Song  is  composed  by  a  single  writer, 
Avhose  pen  commits  to  paper  for  the  eye.  Through  the 
eye  upon  the  page  many  minds  may  be  brought  to  praise 
with  one  accord.  This  implies  the  pre-existence  of  the 
composition,  its  commitment  to  the  book,  then  the;  use  of 
the  book. — All  these  forming  means  and  mediums  through 
and  by  which  minds  and  voices  act  with  one  accord.  Such 
composing  and  penning,  en  masse,  and  then  concordant 
singing  impromptu,  could  not  have  occurred  without  a 
miracle,  and  the  miracle  useless  and  without  a  moral. 
It  could  not  be  a  "pattern"  for  Presbyterian  hymn- 
making,  and  consequently  of  use  to  nobody. 

The  third  and  most  ludicrous  aspect  of  this  Bible  cari- 
cature :  The  grajmic  descriptive  analysis  of  the  composi- 
tion, by  poets  in  company,  of  this  pattern  psalm.  Peter, 
and  all  the  company,  in  the  very  act  of  lifting  up  their  voice 
in  singing  the  beginning  of  the  Second  Psalm  ("  the  literal 
form  "  not  being  suitable),  they  all,  just  then,  continuing 
the  song,  make — "  then  an  addition  to  the  beginning/'  An 
addition  to  what?  In  the  beginning  of  the  Second  Psalm 
— before  the  first  verse  or  after  the  second?  "Then  a  nar- 
rative of  what  David  spoke."  But  this  narrative  added  to 
the  addition  added  to  the  beginning,  was  the  veritable  two 
verses  themselves  of  the  Second  Psalm,  which  they  had  just 
sung  in  verbal  form  before  commencing  the  making  of  this 
New  Testament,  uninspired,  pattern  psalm.  "Then  the  ap- 
plication to  Herod,  Pontius  Pilate,"  etc.  In  sermons  the 
application  usually  closes  the  discourse.  But  this  was  ex- 
traordinary. After  the  application,  a  little  more  finishing 
of  this  "finished"  pattern   composition.     "Then   an  en- 


EXAMINATION   OF   SCRIPTURE   AUTHORITY.  109 

largement  " — not  large  enough  after  application,  addition 
and  narrative,  a  finality  must  be  appended  as  a  voluntary 
to  complete  this  model  of  all  human  compositions.  "And, 
finally;  the  song  concludes  with  desires  suited  to  the  cir- 
cumstances. This  is  an  inspired  pattern  for  making  New 
Testament  psalms." 

Now,  in  all  this  process  of  singing  a  Psalm  of  David,  in 
amending  the  Psalm,  in  composing  for  present  Xew  Testa- 
ment use  by  a  whole  company — not  a  jar — everything  in 
model  unison — every  brain  beat  with  every  other  brain, 
and  thought  responded  to  thought,  and  all  kept  time — ■ 
every  pen  moved  gracefully  as  one,  and  by  one  mind  con- 
trolled— every  voice  in  perfect  concord,  "  all  with  one  ac- 
cord."    Such  unison  earth  seldom  enjoys. 

Reflections.  In  examining  the  leading  testimony  on 
which  our  brethren  rely  as  " stronghold  "  evidence  to  estab- 
lish their  Divine  authority  for  making  and  singing  unin- 
spired hymns,  we  are  induced  to  apply  more  formal 
exegetical  and  analytical  scrutiny  to  their  proof-texts,  and 
a  closer  examination  into  the  character  and  design  of  this 
meeting. 

Was  this  impromptu  meeting  of  Acts  iv.  24,  a  "  com- 
mittee on  the  Revision  of  the  Psalms ?"  Was  it  a  Chris- 
tian "singing  circle,"  met  to  sing  and  cultivate  sacred 
music?  Was  it  a  meeting  suddenly  called — a  surprise 
meeting  of  the  released  apostles,  Peter  and  John,  and  the 
company  of  the  disciples,  in  which,  on  hearing  from  the 
released  prisoners,  they  turned  their  gathering  into  an  ex- 
tempore prayer-meeting?  Can  there  be  any  kind  of 
question  in  regard  to  the  character  of  the  meeting,  or  the 
leading  features  of  its  exercises?  It  was  simply  an  im- 
promptu prayer-meeting.  It  was  not  among  its  dreams, 
even,  to  make  new  psalms,  or  gather,  group,  and  amen  I 
old  ones.     That  they  had,  in  this  meeting,  the  other  ordi- 


110  PSALMODY. 

nary  exercises  0/  the  prayer-meeting,  may  be ;  so  to  sup- 
pose may  not  be  absurd.  They  may  have  read  a  chapter 
of  the  Bible.  They  may  have  sung  the  second  Psalm. 
They  may  have  "  spoken  one  to  another,"  "  exhorted  one 
another,"  as  in  ordinary  prayer-meetings.  We  cannot 
prove  they  did  not.  We  leave  all  this  negative  business 
to  our  friends,  who  depend  on  "why  nots"  for  argument. 
We  can  prove  they  jirayed,  for  the  text  affirms  it. 

Jacobus,  besides  giving  his  own  views,  refers  to  the 
opinion  of  some  other  commentator,  and  says : 

"It  is  supposed  that  the  whole  church  sang  the  'words' 
('.verbal  form'?)  of  the  Second  Psalm,  and  prayed,  and 
that  then  Peter  made  an  application  of  the  Psalm  (ex- 
plained after  singing?)  to  their  present  case  in  the  words 
here  recorded" 

In  the  references  before  us,  we  have  three  distinct  state- 
ments of  the  character  of  the  assembly  recorded  in  Acts 
iv.  24: 

1.  Our  hymn-singing  commentators,  Barnes,  Jacobus, 
etc.,  as  we  have  seen,  say  we  have  " prayer "  here — "  The 

PRAYER  OF  THE  WHOLE  CHURCH." 

2.  Jacobus  hints  that  some  have  supposed  it  to  be  a 
prayer-meeting,  in  which  they  sang,  talked,  and  prayed; 
and  that  in  singing  they  used  the  "  words  of  the  Second 
Psalm"! 

3.  Our  trained  champions,  professional  advocates,  in  the 
cause  of  an  uninspired  psalmody,  say:  "This  is  an  in- 
spired pattern  for  making  New  Testament  psalms — jusl  as 
Dr.  Watts  and  Presbyterians  do."  "There  is  nol  a  single 
instance  in  the  New  Testament  of  the  singing  of  a  Psalm 
of  David  in  a  literal  form."     And  then,  " Only  two  cases 

in  which  they  employed  them  in  social  praise/' 

These  hymn-singing  brethren  can  settle  their  conflicting 

views  among  themselves.     All   taken  together,  they  prove 


EXAMINATION  OF  SCRIPTURE  AUTHORITY.  Ill 


e>  > 


nothing  of  authority  for  Presbyterian  hymn-makin 
rather,  they  give  damaging  hints,  neutralizing  the  whole 
probation.  To  sing  a  Psalm  of  David,  and  to  sing  the 
very  "  words  "  thereof — to  sing  the  veritable  "  verbal 
form  " — is  to  look,  at  least  a  little,  toward  inspired  psalm- 
singing  in  early  New  Testament  times.  This  they  did  not 
mean  to  prove  by  their  "stronghold"  evidence,  affirming 
the  Divine  authority  for  a  very  different  thing  from  that 
which  they  designed  to  make  it  speak. 

Brethren :  We  are  not  yet  prepared  to  follow  you  in 
your  "way"  of  hymn-making  and  singing.  You  must,  to 
prove  affirmatively  in  a  matter  of  Divine  worship,  furnish 
us  something  more  rational  than  that  the  company  of 
Acts  iv.  24  was  a  mere  committee  on  psalmody,  for  the 
revision  of  the  inspired  Psalms  of  the  Bible,  grouping 
inspired  writings  for  New  Testament  use  in  the  praise  of 
God. 

We  thank  you,  nevertheless.  You  give  us  the  best  you 
have.  Till  you  find  better  we  shall  ask  to  be  excused 
from  following  you.  We  shall  stand  still  in  the  way  of 
our  God. 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE    SCOTTISH    VERSION    OF    THE    BOOK    OF    PSALMS    VINDI- 
CATED  AS   A    TRANSLATION. 

Importance  attached  to  the  question  of  translation — No  other  version 
subjected  to  such  extreme  criticism — Mistranslation  defined — Charges 
of  gross  mistranslations  examined — The  First,  the  Sixteenth,  and  the 
Sixty-ninth  Psalms  vindicated  from  charges  of  gross  mistranslation — 
Mistranslations  in  the  prose  Bible  compared  with  the  worst  examples 
in  Rouse — Charges  of  patch-work  and  paraphrase  of  Rouse  examined — 
Manufactured  patches  charged  to  the  account  of  Rouse — Specimens  of 
similar  and  greater  patches  in  our  English  version — Various  classes  of 
specimens — Use  of  Divine  names,  when  not  in  the  original,  charged  as 
a  prejudice  against  Rouse — Superabundance  of  similar  instances  in 
our  prose  Bible. 

rPHE  Scottish  Version  of  the  Book  of  Psalms  has,  we 
are  inclined  to  believe,  been  the  object  of  more  furious 
attack,  and  the  subject  of  more  severe  and  extreme  criti- 
cism, than  all  the  translations  of  all  the  books  of  the  Bible 
besides;  including  all  the  hundreds  of  tongues  into  which 
they  have  been  translated  in  modern  times.  The  true 
friends  of  the  Bible — friends  of  its  universal  circulation, 
adoption,  and  use  in  everything  for  which  it  is  " suited " 
and  designed — friends  of  its  universal  influence  among  all 
nations  and  tongues — will  be  slow  to  attack  translations 
long  sanctioned  and  used  by  the  church  of  Christ.  Here 
is  a  translation  sanctioned,  not  by  a  committee  of  civilians, 
called  by  Royal  prerogative,  but  by  one  of  the  most  evan- 
gelical and  venerable  of  all  the  Assemblies  that  have  con- 
vened iii  all  Christendom  for  two  and  a  quarter  centuries. 
Here  is  a  translation  of  one  of  the  books  of  the  Bible, 
112 


SCOTTISH    VERSION    VINDICATED.  113 

prepared  and  sanctioned  by  the  Church  of  Scotland  in  the 
days  of  her  learning,  her  power,  her  glory.     Rutherford, 

Henderson,  Gillespie,  Baillie,  Douglass,  were  there. 
"There  were  giants  in  those  days."  The  most  evangelical 
churches  of  Protestantism  have,  ever  since  those  golden 
days,  used  this  translation.  Some  of  the  best  scholars  of 
the  last  two  centuries  have  recognized  this  translation  as 
Worthy  of  a  place  among  the  versions  of  the  books  of  the 
Bible.  From  one  -single  quarter  have  all  the  fierce  assaults 
come — from  partizan  controversialists. 

Here,  and  now,  Ave  design  not  even  an  attempt  to  ward 
off  all  the  strokes  of  the  enemies  of  this  version,  or  offer 
for  it  a  formal  and  elaborate  vindication.  TTe  have  here 
but  little  more  than  one  point  to  make:  Our  Scottish  ver- 
sion is  a  translation.  AVe  have,  in  the  meantime,  one  word 
of  caution  for  our  friends  and  readers  on  the  subject  of  our 
Scottish  version  of  the  Book  of  Psalms :  Eemember  the 
maxim,  Do  not  throw  stones  from  y;}i\^  houses.  Or,  deal 
gently  and  candidly  with  the  subject  of  Bible  translations : 
the  more  so  in  this  age  of  missions,  of  Bibles,  of  Bible 
translation,  and  Bible  circulation. 

In  making  this  one  point,  we  have  to  say:  It  would  be 
very  easy  to  turn  this  weapon  of  severe  criticism,  so 
adroitly  handled  by  the  opponents  of  this  version,  upon 
the  translation  of  King  James,  and  in  the  same  way,  and 
so  play  into  the  hand  of  the  Infidel,  as  our  friends  are  in- 
cautiously doing.  These  attacks  upon  a  scripture  psalmody 
might,  in  manner  of  the  opponent,  have  been  repelled  long 
since  but  for  repugnance  to  the  use  of  such  weapons. 

Here  is  the  assault  and  the  tactics;  and  here  is  our  one 
point,  to  parry  the  blo\  Let  us  -rate 

those.  A  few  blemishes,  of  a  certain  kind,  are  found  in 
this  version.  These  are  magnified,  distorted,  misnamed, 
and  many  added,  not   in  the  version  at  all.     Then,  the 


114  PSALMODY. 

whole  is  branded  as  a  mere  paraphrase — a  piece  of  patch- 
work— no  version  at  all,  having  no  claims  to  be  recognized 
as  the  word  of  God,  as  a  scripture  psalmody,  and  nothing 
more  than  human  composition,  just  like  Watts'  imitation. 
This  principle  of  criticism,  applied  by  our  friends  to  this 
version,  pronounces  upon  our  Bible  in  common  use,  and 
almost  certainly  upon  the  Bible  in  every  language  into 
which  it  has  ever  been  translated.  Not  one  of  them  all  is 
without  blemish,  or  mark  of  human  error  in  translating. 
Our  own,  among  the  very  best  extant,  cannot,  for  an 
hour,  stand  this  ordeal  of  the  unreasonable  and  monstrous 
test  applied  to  the  version  in  question.  The  Septuagint, 
the  translation  of  the  Bible  used  as  the  word  of  God  in  the 
days  of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  and  by  the  church  now  for 
twenty  centuries  past,  and  thus  far  passed  unchallenged — 
a  worse  translation  than  the  Scottish  version — could  not 
for  a  moment  stand  the  ordeal  applied  here. 

Do  our  friends  really  assume  that  King  James'  trans- 
lation is  perfect,  and  an  honest  test-rule  by  which  to 
pronounce  upon  every  other?  From  this  stand-point  do 
they  view  our  version  as  a  paper  wall,  through  which  they 
can  furiously  dash  like  a  wild  bull,  and,  passing  through 
it,  presume  they  can  toss  it  into  fragments  high  in  air? 
Gentlemen!  we  live  in  the  nineteenth  century.  The 
Bashan  breed  are  extinct.  You  may  have  missed  your 
calling  and  your  coat  of  mail. 

For  nearly  a  century  the  leading  advocates  of  a  human 
psalmody  have  found  fault  with  the  Book  of  Psalms  itself, 
and  on  the  ground  of  its  unfitness  for  New  Testament  wor- 
ship. Even  apologies  for  the  hard  sayings  of  Dr.  Waits 
disparaging  this  pari  of  the  word  of  God,  admit  that  a  pari 
of  the  Bool;  of  Psalms,  without  refer*  Dee  to  Rouse,  or  any 
other  version,  is  "adapted  to  sink  the  devotion"  of  Chris- 
tians  at    the    present    time.     More  recently  controversial 


VINDICATED. 

materially  changed.     Whil 
k,  directly,  any  part  of  the   Bible,  it   is 
comparati  to  assail  a  metrical  version  of 

the  [enouncing  it  as  a  paraphra.se,  a  patch-* 

no  version  at  all,  because  it  fails  to  be  word  for  word  witn 
our  prose  translation. 

ill  be  well,  just  here,  to  have  in  our  minds,  a  definite 
understanding  of  the  rules  by  which  honorable  men  judge 
of  the  merits  of  translations  ;  the  various  kinds  of  transla- 
tions and  mistranslations ;  their  respective  merits  and 
demerits;  and  especially  the  question,  whether  any  trans- 
lation can,  in  any  proper  sense,  be  recognized  as  the  word 
of  GrocL 

There  are  various  kinds  and  degrees  of  mistranslations. 
re  is  the  gross  and  palpable  kind,  rendering  a  word,  or 
-nee,  by  a  word,  or  words,  of  a  different  or  apposite 
meaning  ;  as  Easter  for  Pa-<cAa,  a  palpable  mistranslation. 
There  is  a  form  of  mistranslation  where  the  meaning  of 
the  original  is  not  fully  brought  out  and  transferred  to  the 
vernacular,  or  when  more  is  transferred  than  is  in  the  ori- 
ginal. It  is  a  blemish  in  translation  when  it  is  too  liberal, 
when  there  are  too  many  explel  much  expansion 

of  the  thought,  too  much  repetition,  or  when  approximating 
..mment  or  paraphrase.     The  fir.<t  of  these  is  the  m  ri 
objectionable,  the  last  the  least  offensive  and  dangerous. 
The  one  leads  from   the  way  altogether,  the  other  only 

Candor   will    admit    that   all    translations    have   their 
blemishes.     An  I,  like  them  all,  our  metrical  Psalms  have 
we  acknowledge,  and  tl 
What  number,  or  degree,  of  blemi* 
y  the  claims  of  a  version  to  a  place  am<jiig  re 
trams  it   is  not  our  place  to  fix  the  line,  or  adjust 

the  scale.     This  our  brethren  should  not  have  overlooked 


11G  PSALMODY. 

when  commencing  their  work  of  weighing  versions  in  the 
scales  of  a  translation  ;  it  was  properly  their  work,  as  a 
logical  conclusion,  from  their  high  assumptions  of  judiciary 
prerogative  over  versions.  We  have  this  to  say  here, 
however:  there  are  many  translations  having  a  long  and 
unquestioned  recognition,  some  of  which  have  had  a  place 
in  the  church  for  nearly  two  thousand  years.  Hundreds 
have,  in  modern  times,  taken  rank  among  versions,  and 
are  finding  their  way,  as  the  recognized  word  of  God,  to 
all  nations,  kindreds,  peoples  and  tongues  on  earth.  Have 
wre  been  mistaken  here?  Are  we  sending  the  heathen 
bread,  or  a  stone?  Are  we  sending  them  the  scriptures, 
the  veritable  word  of  the  living  God,  or  patch-work  and 
paraphrase  only? — mere  notes  and  comments?  Let  us 
know.  There  is  a  standard.  Established  use  sometimes 
becomes  a  law.  In  applying  the  standard,  the  original 
text,  shall  we  adopt  the  rule  of  our  brethren,  one  that  will 
sweep  every  translation  extant  from  the  catalogue?  And 
are  we  to  submit  to  such  a  rule,  and  coolly  permit  our  ver- 
sion to  be  put  under  ban,  while  no  better,  perhaps  inferior, 
hold  their  position  unchallenged?  To  this  we  demur. 
And  still  more:  Ave  refuse  to  be  tried  and  condemned  by 
any  other  version  of  equal,  or  greater,  defects. 

In  regard  to  the  first  and  gross  kind  of  mistranslation, 
we  challenge  the  most  rigid  scrutiny. 

CHARGE,  AGAINST    ROUSE,  OF    GROSS    MISTRANSLATION    AND 
ERROR   REPELLED. 

We  here  assert:  There  is  not  a  single  instance  of  the 
first  and  gross  hind  of  mistranslation  in  our  Scottish  ver- 
sion, from  beginning  to  end,  except  in  one  or  two,  where 
the  Septuagint,  or  our  prose  version,  is  followed.     On  the 

other  hand,  avc  concede  that,  like  the  Septuagint,  and  like 
our  prose  Bible,  there  are  many  instances  of  expletives, 


SCOTTISH   VERSION   VINDICATED.  117 

expansions,  repetitions  to  excess,  demonstrating  that  it 
might  be  improved.  These  conceded  imperfections  no 
more  destroy  its  claims  to  a  place  among  versions,  than 
the  imperfections  of  our  common  Bible  prove  that  it  is  not 
the  word  of  God. 

We  now  appeal  to  the  standard. 

In  the  very  opening  of  our  version,  and  in  the  very  first 
line  of  the  First  Psalm,  we  meet  the  charge  of  gross  mis- 
translation.    Thus — 

"  The  blunders  of  Eouse,  in  making  David  say  the  true 
Christian,  in  his  experience  of  this  life,  '  hath  perfect  bles- 
sedness ' — which  implies  perfect  holiness,  and  teaches  the 
error  of  sinless  perfection." 

We  reply  to  this  bold,  yet  silly,  sophomoric  charge  in 
the  language  of  a  scholar,  a  divine,  and  hymn-singing 
commentator — Dr.  J.  A.  Alexander,  late  of  Princeton, 
N.  J.: 

"  The  description  opens  with  a  kind  of  admiring  excla- 
mation— (Oh!)  the  blessedness  of  the  man!  The  plural 
form  of  the  original  {felicities,  or  happinesses),  if  anything 
more  than  grammatical  idiom,  in  our  language  may  de- 
note fullness  and  variety  of  happiness,  as  if  he  had  said, 
Hon)  completely  happy  is  the  man!" 

In  addition,  we  notice,  "Ashre,"  the  word  in  contro- 
versy, is  a  noun.  So  it  is  in  Rouse.  An  abstract  noun  in 
the  plural  form — "blessednesses."  The  prose  Bible  gives 
an  adjective — "blessed/'  and  adds  an  auxiliary  verb — "is." 
Bishop  Louth  says  the  plural  noun  here  is  like  the  Latin 
vocative  plural,  and  has  the  force  of  an  adjective  in  the 
superlative  degree ;  as,  O,  the  inexpressible  blessedness  of 
the  man  !  So,  Dr.  Alexander — "  complete  blessedness." 
Now,  had  Rouse  said — 

"  That  man  hath  *  happiness  complete/  who  walketh  not  astra}'," 


118  PSALMODY. 

would  lie  and  Alexander  have  been  antagonistic  ?  Again, 
had  Rouse  said — 

"That  man  hath  '  blessedness '  complete,  who  walketh  not  astray," 

would  there  yet  be  antagonism  ?  And  now,  as  it  is,  how 
broad,  deep,  wide,  the  difference  betwixt  complete  and  per- 
fect? Does  complete  happiness  imply  complete  holiness 
in  this  life,  and  so  teach  the  error  of  sinless  perfection  here? 
Not  so  fast,  just  here,  friends  of  Dr.  Alexander !  Neither 
Lowth,  nor  Alexander,  nor  Rouse,  nor  David,  nor  the  Holy 
Spirit  in  the  Psalm,  teaches  that  "  the  Christian  hath  in 
this  life"  any  such  sinless  perfection.  Had  not  our  friends 
committed  the  incomparably  greater  blunder — -first,  of  cast- 
ing Christ  out  of  the  Psalm,  as  their  cause  imperatively 
demands,  and  second,  of  applying  descriptions  of  character 
as  primarily  belonging  to  the  Christian,  which  so  belong 
to  "  no  mere  man  since  the  fall,"  they  could  not  have  so  ex- 
posed their  weakness  and  prejudice.  More,  by-and-by,  of 
the  spirit  and  principle  brought  to  the  surface  here  in  this 
desperate  attack  upon  this  precious.  Psalm,  in  which  there 
is  so  much  of  Christ,  and  in  which  our  brethren,  for  the 
sake  of  consistency  and  their  cause,  must  see  nothing  of 
the  blessed  Saviour. 

Attacks  upon  Rouse,  like  all  other  attacks  upon  a  scrip- 
ture psalmody,  will  do  very  well  for  loose  declamation,  so 
long  as  there  is  no  grappling  with  principle  or  facts.  But 
when  Rouse  is  brought  face  to  face  with  other  versions, 
and  their  defects  laid  open  before  the  final  test  of  all  trans- 
lations, the  whole  controversy  assumes  a  very  different 
aspect.  Put  other  translations  upon  their  own  defence, 
pressed  by  the  claims  of  law  and  standard,  and  the  issue 
presents  a  very  different  character.  And  here,  in  the  First 
Psalm,)  let  these  unreasonable  assaults  upon  our  version 
find  a  striking  illustration.     Because  the  word  "perfect"  is 


SCOTTISH   VERSION   VINDICATED.  119 

there  used,  the  charges  come  down  like  snow  flakes — rather 
like  hail  stones— thick,  and  fast,  and  chilling.  "  Gross 
error  in  doctrine/'  "mistranslation"  of  monstrous  kind, 
charges  enough  to  freeze  the  heart  and  close  the  lips  .of 
any  credulous  worshipper  who  could  for  a  moment  give 
heed  to  the  damaging  aspersions.  Few  arguments  against 
our  version  have  any  more  sense  or  weight  than  this,  there- 
fore we  dwell  upon  it. 

Why,  truly,  Rouse  says  "perfect"  and  the  Psalms  are 
denounced.  Now,  if  this  is  error  in  Rouse,  so  gross  that 
his  Psalms  are  untrueyrand  patch-work,  what  of  that  Book 
which  reads,  "Noah  was  a  just  man,  and  perfect  in  his 
generation;"  which  reads,  "My  servant  Job,  a  perfect  and 
an  upright  man;"  which  reads,  "Mark  the  perfect  and 
behold  the  upright ;"  which  reads,  "  That  they  may  shoot 
in  secret  at  the  perfect-"  which  reads,  "I  will  behave  my- 
self wisely  in  vl  perfect  way  ;"  which  reads,  "  He  that  walketh 
in  a  perfect  way,  he  shall  serve  me;"  which  reads,  "  And  the 
perfect  shall  remain  in  the  land;"  which  reads,  "The 
righteousness  of  the  perfect  shall  direct  his  way;"  which 
reads,  "  Let  us,  therefore,  as  many  as  be  perfect ;"  which 
reads,  "  Every  good  gift  and  every  perfect  gift  is  from  above," 
(as  happiness,  or  "  blessedness?")  ;  which  reads,  "  By  works 
was  faith  made  perfect;"  which  reads,  "If  any  man  offend 
not  in  word,  the  same  is  a  perfect  man  "  (a  "  sinless"  man  ?)  ; 
which  reads,  "  Herein  is  our  love  made  ]) erf ect — perfect  love 
castetli  out  fear?"  Yes,  what  of  the  Book  that  scores  of 
times  reads  " perfect f"  But  such  is  the  character  of  the 
thing  we  have  for  argument  in  this  very  critical  contro- 
versy. 

The  Scottish  version  of  this  Psalm,  tried  by  the  final 
standard,  and  that  standard  in  the  hand  of  the  able  and 
honest  scholar,  will  stand  proudly  equal  with  the  prose;  it 
is  not  ours  here  to  say,  superior.     To  scholars  it  can  speak 


120  PSALMODY. 

for  itself.     Controversial  critics  will  run  to  the  prose,  and 
be  of  the  same  opinion  still. 

The  Sixteenth  Psalm  is  next  most  rudely  assailed,  and 
Rouse  charged  with  gross  doctrinal  error  and  mistransla- 
tion. The  charge  here  is  a  libel  against  God's  word.  It 
aims,  not  only  at  Rouse,  but  strikes  at  the  prose  and  original 
text,  too.  It  is  laid  on  the  first  clause  of  the  tenth  verse, 
which  in  the  prose  reads  thus,  "For  thou  wilt  not  leave 
my  soul  in  hell."     The  metrical  version  reads  thus : 

"Because  my  soul  in  grave  to  dwell,  shall  not  be  left  by  thee." 

The  whole  weight  of  the  vengeance  of  the  critic  turns 
upon  one  word  differing  from  the^rose.  The  latter  renders 
sheol,  "  hell ;"  Rouse  renders  it  "  grave ;"  and  on  this  differ- 
ence he  lays  the  following  charges : 

"(1.)  That  the  soul  goes  down  into  the  grave  with  the 
body.  (2.)  That  the  human  soul  of  our  blessed  Lord  was 
thus  buried  with  his  body.  (3.)  That  '  his  heart  was  glad* 
because  his  '  soul  was  not  suffered  to  remain  in  the  grave  !'  " 

]Sow,  such  senseless  jargon  and  libel  against  God's  word 
betrays  a  bad  cause  and  a  worse  advocate.  For,  by  using 
the  word  hell,  as  in  the  prose,  and  approved  by  our  critics, 
the  conclusion  will  be  as  much  more  damaging  to  the  Bible, 
as  hell  is  a  worse  place  for  the  soul  than  the  grave.  Will 
these  horrible  conclusions  follow  one  whit  the  less  from 
the  rendering  of  the  prose?  Is  it  any  better  to  send  the 
soul  with  the  body  to  hell?  How  much  better  can  we 
expect  from  the  spirit  of  the  preface  to  those  charges,  and 
from  the  spirit  that  would  approve  of  Watts'  as  the  correct 
rendering?     Hear  our  critics;  thus  they  read  : 

"This  is  plainly  the  true  sense — for  how  could  David's 
80ul  (not  his  body)  be  left  in  the  grave?  Dr.  Watts  has 
given  the  correct  rendering : 

"'Though  in  the  dust  I  lay  my  head, 

Vrt,  gracious  God,  thou  wilt  not  leave 
Mj  tout  forever  with  tk>  dead.' 


SCOTTISH   VERSION   VINDICATED.  121 

"  How  much  more  accurate,  theologically  considered,  is 
this  than  that  of  Rouse,"  says  our  critic. 

What  else,  except  a  bad  cause  and  worse  advocate,  must 
of  necessity  find  David  wThen  Christ  is  in  the  Psalm? 
What  else  must  find  some  phantasm  of  the  soul  of  David, 
or  somebody,  going  to  hell,  or  going  "  with  the  dead,"  in- 
stead of  Christ's  body  going  to  the  grave  f  And  what  else 
must  put  a  pagan  or  popish  construction  upon  the  leading 
terms  in  the  Psalm — as  Nephesh  and  sheol  f  Had  not  the 
Holy  Spirit  settled  the  specific  meaning  of  these  words  as 
used  here,  reckless  controversialists  might  be  excused  in 
their  shameful  blundering.  Acts  iv.  31,  excludes  all  verbal 
criticism,  and  closes  all  controversy  about  the  verbal  appli- 
cation of  these  terms.  The  resurrection  of  Christ's  body  is 
the  subject  Nephesh,  in  the  Psalm,  means  Christ's  body, 
nothing  else.  It  is  oftened  used  of  a  dead  body,  a  carcass. 
The  following  are  some  of  the  examples,  as  may  be  seen  by 
turning  to  the  Hebrew  Bible — Lev.  xxi.  1,  11 ;  Lev.  xxii. 
4 ;  Num.  v.  2 ;  Num.  vi.  6 ;  Num.  xix.  11,  13 ;  Num.  ix.  6, 
7, 10 ;  Hag.  ii.  13,  et  al.  This  Nephesh,  dead  body  of  Christ, 
went  to  the  grave,  the  "place  of  the  dead" — to  the  sheol  of 
the  Psalm.  But  Christ's  soul  never  went  to  sheol,  to  the 
grave,  to  the  place  or  "state  of  the  dead;"  nor  to — worst 
and  most  shocking  of  all — uhell!"  No,  not  for  one  mo- 
ment. Christ's  soul  went  immediately  to  paradise  —  to 
glory,  the  place  of  the  living. 

Sheol,  here  in  this  Psalm,  by  the  decision  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  final,  and  from  which  there  is  no  appeal,  means  the 
grave  where  Christ's  body  lay.  Rouse  translates  it  grave, 
which  it  means  here,  and  nothing  else.  Our  prose  version 
renders  it  hell,  which  it  don't  mean  here  at  all.  Dr.  Watts 
and  the  hymn-singers  will  have  it,  and  sing  it,  neither  hell 
nor  the  grave;  but  the  i(  dust,"  and  "with  the  dead,"  for 
they  make  both  the  grave  and  purgatory  out  of  it ;  the  one 
11 


122  PSALMODY. 

ibr  the  "head"  (or  body)  of  Christ;  the  other  for  the  soul 
of  Christ,  thus — "  My  head  in  the  dust" — "  My  soul  with  the 
dead"  all  from  "  shcol,"  and  all  "  the  correct  rendering  of 
Dr.  Watts."  About  Watts'  rendering  we  have  here  little  to 
do,  and  care  as  little.  The  question  with  us  is  this  :  Is  not 
our  Scottish  translation  of  sheol  here  better  than  the  ren- 
dering of  the  prose  ?  This  is  a  matter  neither  of  debate  nor 
verbal  criticism.  The  Spirit  of  God,  in  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  puts  this  out  of  the  way  of  special  pleading ;  and 
to  say  that  House  gives  a  better  rendering  here  than  the 
prose  Bible,  is  but  to  use  a  simple  truism.  The  champions 
who  can  write  pages  of  this  sort  to  condemn  our  Scottish 
version  had  as  well  not  throw  stones  from  the  prose  Bible, 
or  from  Watts'  glasshouse.  But  stones  must  be  thrown  at 
our  venerable  metrical  version,  or  the  craft  will  be  in 
danger.  How  much,  for  some  desperate  causes,  can  be 
made  out  of  nothing  !  And,  by-the-way,  this  hyper-criticism 
is  a  pretty  fair  specimen  of  the  charges  of  mistranslations 
in  our  version  of  the  Psalms. 

The  Sixty-ninth  Psalm  furnishes  ground  for  the  third 
charge  of  mistranslation  and  error.  The  last  clause  of  the 
fourth  verse  in  the  prose  reads  thus,  "  Then  I  restored  that 
which  I  took  not  away."  This  in  the  metre  is  rendered 
thus,  "  So  what  I  took  not,  to  render  forced  was  I." 

This  rendering  is  charged  with  "  very  serious  doctrinal 
and  historical  error ;"  and  "  to  represent  the  atonement  of 
Christ  as  compulsatory ;"  to  "  overthrow  the  spiritual  na- 
ture of  the  divine  sacrifice ;  to  misrepresent  the  inspired 
record,  and  contradict  the  Saviour  himself."  And  "  which 
of  course  utterly  subverts  the  doctrine  of  atonement,  by 
representing  the  blessed  Saviour  as  a  forced  victim  to  divine 
justice!  Still  we  have  too  niueh  charity  for  these  brethren 
to  imagine  they  hold  these  gross  errors"  Very  kind!  We 
are  not  charged  with  1  lie  gross  errors  we  sing!     Ah,  not 


SCOTTISH    VERSION   VINDICATED.  123 

much  harm  to  sing  gross  error;  since  singing  is  like  preach- 
ing, we  can  test  by  the  Bible,  take  the  good  and  reject  the 
bad! 

Believing  candor  to  be  a  lovely  trait  in  the  character  of 
a  controversialist,  we  state  freely  that  we  shall  not  defend 
the  word  "  forced"  as  the  best  possible  turn  of  the  English 
language  by  which  to  translate  the  original  here.  We  con- 
fess to  the  defect  in  both  our  prose  Bible  and  our  Scottish 
version.  And,  further,  we  confess  there  are  many  instances 
in  which  both  these  versions  fail  to  select  the  best  possible 
words  in  the  language ;  and  yet  they  are,  on  the  whole, 
both  good  translations,  and  both  the  wTord  of  God,  just  as 
all  other  fair  translations  of  the  scriptures  are  the  word  of 
God.  In  regard  to  the  prose  and  metrical  versions  of  this 
clause  of  the  Psalm  under  consideration  wre  remark : — 

First  According  to  the  rule  of  our  learned  critics,  the 
prose  is  very  defective ;  because  it  transposes  the  order  of 
the  original,  the  metre  preserves  it.  Second.  The  prose  fails 
to  preserve  the  causative  sense  of  the  Hebrew  verb,  which 
is  in  the  Hiphil  or  causative  form.  Third.  The  first  verb, 
Gezely  is  not  fully  rendered  in  either  of  the  versions.  It 
means  to  rob  ;  to  take  by  force  or  violence.  It  is  too  feebly 
rendered  by,  "  took  not  away;"  and  therefore  the  antithesis 
of  the  original  is  lost  in  the  rendering  of  the  second  verb. 
The  first,  meaning  to  take  by  force,  and  the  second,  being 
in  the  causative  form,  requires  the  antithetic  form  in  ren- 
dering the  second.  While  forced  is  liable  to  criticism,  our 
translators  might  have  used  caused  with  safety. 

Two  forms  of  test  may  be  applied  here — theological  and 
philological. 

Theologically,  two  aspects  favor  our  version  ;  rendering, 
substantially — First.  Christ's  persecutors  and  murderers 
treated  him  as  if  he  had  been  a  robber,  making  him  restore, 
as  if  he  had  by  robbery  appropriated  what  did  not  belong 


124  PSALMODY. 

to  him,  and  so  was  forced  to  render  what  he  did  not  rob. 
Second.  Christ  voluntarily  bound  himself  in  covenant  to 
restore  what  he  took  not  away  from  the  law.  He  was, 
therefore,  made  under  the  law.  He  was  made  sin  for  us. 
The  law  recognized  him  as  our  surety,  and  held  him  bound 
for  the  payment  of  our  debt.  Hence  he  says,  "Ought  not 
Christ  to  have  suffered  these  things  ?"  It  was  not  possible 
the  cup  should  pass  from  him.  "  Jehovah  hath  made  to 
light  on  him  the  iniquity  of  us  all.  It  was  exacted,  and  he 
was  made  answerable."  Isa.  liii.  6,  7. 

Philologically  the  metrical  version  is  substantially  vindi- 
cated. Versions  have  to  do  with  the  meaning  of  words. 
These  we  have  noticed  in  part.  But,  further,  the  verb 
Ashib,  in  the  future  Hiphil,  together  with  the  antithesis 
with  the  context,  warrant  the  rendering  in  the  causative 
form.  With  this  standard  authorities  agree.  Luther  ren- 
ders thus,  "Ich  muss  bezahlen,  das  ich  nicht  geraubet 
habe  ;"  that  is,  "  I  must  repay  what  I  did  not  rob."  Here 
the  idea  of  the  Scottish  version  is  actually  embodied  and 
distinctly. 

Dr.  Alexander  renders  these  words  thus :  "  What  I  did 
not  rob,  then  must  I  restore."  Is  this  not  substantially  sus- 
taining Rouse  ?  We  say  substantially,  for  we  concede  the 
,  term  forced  is  unhappily  chosen,  though  substantially  a 
literal  rendering.  It  is  strong  and  harsh.  But  is  it  not, 
to  all  competent  and  candid  minds,  as  literal  as  the  prose, 
and  as  really  a  version  ?  If  not,  what  shall  we  say  of 
Luther,  Alexander,  and  other  scholars  —  indeed,  of  all 
scholars,  for  all  must  render  substantially  the  same  way? 

We  have  now  noticed  the  three,  and  the  only  instances 
in  which  our  shrewd  critics  have  discovered  mistranslation 
and  gross  error  in  our  metrical  version.  If  more  were  to 
be  found,  more  no  doubt  would  have  been  found,  and  spread 
out  over  the  emblazoned  page.     To  the  candid  and  ripe 


SCOTTISH   VERSION   VINDICATED.  125 

scholar,  acquainted  with  scripture  translations,  the  follow- 
ing will  at  once  be  his  decision  in  regard  to  the  transla- 
tions in  the  three  instances  under  consideration.  They  are, 
in  both  the  English  and  Scottish  versions,  substantially 
fair  translations ;  and  in  nothing  does  either  of  them,  in 
anything  essential,  misrepresent  the  sense  of  the  original. 
Thus  vanishes  the  bitter  gall,  in  the  form  of  malignant 
charges  of  mistranslation  and  gross  error  in  essential  evan- 
gelical doctrine,  into  thin  air.  What  a  dust  and  smoke  of 
malignant  slander  raised  around  a  mere  shade  of  error  in 
translating  three  or  jour  Hebrew  words — Ashre,  Nephesh, 
Sheol,  Ashib  !  And  then,  one  of  these  words  translated 
into  the  very  word  used  by  our  prose  translators ;  and  the 
only  one  of  the  four  actually  mistranslated  in  Rouse — 
Nephesh  mistranslated  soul — of  course  not  noticed  by  our 
critics,  because  so  found  in  their  Test-Rule.  Another,  sheol, 
actually  settled  in  its  meaning  in  the  Sixteenth  Psalm  by  a 
rule  ruling  the  rule  of  our  friends,  the  Holy  Spirit  in 
Acts — ruling  the  correctness  of  the  rendering  in  Rouse,  the 
"grave."  From  this  decision  in  favor  of  Rouse,  the  defen- 
dant, the  critics  have  no  appeal.  In  the  other  two,  the 
Hebrew  text  being  the  rule,  ruling  all  rules,  and  the  judg- 
ment of  the  most  erudite  philologists  applying  that  rule, 
is  not  the  difference  substantially  in  favor  of  defendant? 
Is  not  the  Scottish  version  in  the  cases  under  consideration 
on  the  whole  better  than  the  prose  ?  If  the  plaintiff  has 
so  signally  failed  here,  in  the  strongest  points  possible  for 
him  to  make,  should  he  not  suffer  non-suit,  pay  damage 
and  costs  ? 

And  now,  after  all  the  parade  of  words,  sharp  and  bitter, 
poured  out  upon  our  Scottish  version,  its  enemies  have 
exhausted  their  magazines  of  wrath  in  windy  charges 
against  these  two  or  three  words  as  the  only  specimens  of 
gross  error  and  mistranslation.  Can  our  prose  version,  after 
11* 


126  PSALMODY. 

passing  through  such  an  ordeal  of  fire,  maintain  such  a 
record? — only  a  word  or  two  palpably  mistranslated  from 
beginning  to  end  ?  All  other  charges  on  which  Rouse  is 
condemned  as  patchwork — no  version  at  all — belong  to 
expletions,  amplifications,  etc.  To  these  we  shall  attend 
in  order.     We  now  turn  the  tables. 

AUDI    ALTERAM    PARTEM. 

The  very  unpleasant  work  of  comparing  defects  in  trans- 
lations is  now  before  us.  We  again  protest  against  this 
whole  business,  and  again  state  that  we  suffer  ourselves  to 
be  drawn  into  it  only  on  necessary  defence  of  truth,  and  as 
the  last  resort  to  arrest  persistent  warfare  upon  a  version 
of  a  part  of  God's  word  which  we  hold  dear. 

MISTRANSLATIONS  IN  THE  PROSE  BIBLE  USED  BY  THE 
FRIENDS  OF  UNINSPIRED  PSALMODY  AS  THEIR  TEST- 
RULE. 

We  here  refer  to  the  first  class  of  errors  in  translation, 
to  the  gross  and  palpable  kind,  where  a  word  is  rendered 
by  one  of  a  different  or  opposite  meaning,  giving  some 
other  meaning  aside  the  true  one. 

The  word  Pneuma,  meaning  spirit,  is  found  in  the  New 
Testament  about  400  times.  In  222  instances  it  is  applied 
to  the  Third  Person  of  the  Trinity.  In  some  132  times 
translated  accurately  spirit.  In  some  90  instances  grossly 
mistranslated  "ghost" 

Now  God  is  a  Spirit.  But  neither  an  apparition,  a 
wraith,  a  swarth.  a  swairth,  a  ghost,  a  giest,  nor  a  ghost. 
This  is  a  damaging  mistranslation,  and  has  done  immense 
damaging  work  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  to  the 
Supreme  Deity  of  the  Holy  Spirit  Thousands  of  our  youth 
have  had  their  minds   poisoned  by  this   mistranslation. 


SCOTTISH    VERSION    VINDICATED.  127 

Thousands  of  shrewd  Arians  can  scoff  and  east  in  our  teeth 
the  stinging  challenger-How  can  an  apparition,  a  wraith, 
a  ghost  be  God?  All  the  mistranslations  of  Rouse  put 
together  will  not  equal  these  ninety  cases  of  vital  impor- 
tance.    Shall  we  stop  here  ? 

In  Job  xxvi.  7,  we  read :  "  Hangeth  the  earth  upon 
nothing."  The  Hebrew,  balima,  is  mistranslated  "  nothing" 
It  is  found  in  Ps.  xxxii.  9,  translated  "  bit  and  bridle."  In 
Job  it  means  "  restrainers,"  and  doubtless  refers  to  the  cen- 
trifugal and  centripetal  forces  holding  the  earth  in  its  orbit. 

In  Ps.  xliv.  2,  the  prose  reads,  last  clause,  "And  cast 
them  out,"  referring  to  the  heathen,  and  is  a  mistranslation 
of  the  Hebrew  "  tashalahim."  This  refers  to  "  our  fathers," 
and  should  read,  "extend  them,"  or  increase  them ;  as  also 
Ps.  lxxx.  11,  "Spread  out"  as  branches.  See  Dr.  Alex- 
ander ;  also  Scottish  version. 

In  Ps.  xvi.  10,  wre  have  a  palpable  instance  in  mistrans- 
lating Nephesh  and  Sheol,  soul,  and  hell,  both  in  violation 
of  the  analogy  of  faith  in  the  text  and  elsewhere,  settling 
the  meaning  in  the  Psalm  to  be  body  and  grave,  and  noth- 
ing else. 

The  prose  mistranslates  Ps.  lxii.  3,  reading  thus :  "  Ye 
shall  be  slain  all  of  you ;  as  a  bowing  wTall  shall  ye  be,  and 
as  a  tottering  fence."  This  reading  makes  the  reference  to 
enemies.  The  true  rendering  changes  the  reference  to  the 
speaker,  thus :  "  Will  ye  murder  all  of  you,  like  a  wall 
inclined,  a  fence  crushed?"  That  is,  murder  a  man  already 
crushed  ? 

The  prose  mistranslates  and  changes  the  meaning  of  Ps. 
xcii.  11,  reading  thus:  "  Mine  eye  also  shall  see  my  desire 
on  mine  enemies,  and  mine  ears  shall  hear  my  desire."  Lite- 
rally thus  :  "  Mine  eye  has  looked  upon  my  enemies — my 
ear  shall  hear."  Simply,  sees  what  becomes  of  enemies,  not 
the  gratification  of  desires  on  them.     The  same  mistrans- 


128  PSALMODY. 

lation  is  repeatedly  found,  as  in  Ps.  liv.  7 ;  Ps.  lix.  10 ;  Ps. 
cxii.  8  ;  Ps.  cxviii.  7,  etc.  "* 

In  Jerem.  ii.  14,  the  following  mistranslation  occurs: 
"  Ilonie-born  slave,'1  where  there  is  nothing  like  slave.  The 
Hebrew  is,  "Hid  baith,"  meaning  "  son  of  my  house." 

In  Luke  xiv.  10,  we  read:  "  Then  shalt  thou  have  icor- 
ship."  Daxa  is  found  in  the  New  Testament  about  175 
times,  and  when  applied  to  man  never  means  worship ;  this 
belongs  to  God  alone. 

We  read  in  Acts  xii.  4,  thus :  "  Intending  after  Easter." 
There  is  not  a  word  in  all  the  New  Testament  meaning 
Easter  or  Easter-day.  That  day  belongs  to  episcopacy,  not 
the  word  of  God.  Pascha,  the  Greek  word,  here  means 
Passover,  never  Easter.  In  all  Rouse  there  is  not  such  a 
gross  mistranslation. 

In  1  John  ii.  23,  we  read  as  follows :  ("  But)  he  that  ac- 
knowledgeth  the  Son  hath  the  Father  ako."  These  words  are  in 
Italics,  by  which  we  are  told  that  there  is  nothing  for  them 
in  the  text ;  but,  being  understood,  the  translators  supply 
the  ellipsis.  If  these  words  are  in  the  original,  to  tell  us, 
as  our  translators  here  tell  us,  they  are  not,  is  palpably  to 
mistranslate.  If  they  are  not  in  the  original,  that  is  quite 
another  matter — only  a  large  patch  asserting  some  consider- 
able doctrinal  teaching.  Such  would  materially  damage 
Rouse's  divinity! 

In  2  Cor.  viii.  1,  have  wTe  a  translation  of  "  Gnoridzomen 
de  humin"  in  these  words :  "  Moreover,  we  do  you,  to  wit  ?" 
Or  is  this  a  translation  in  English? — We  make  known  to 
you. 

In  1  Tim.  i.  9,  we  read :  "  The  law  is  not  made  for  a 
righteous  man."  Is  this  true  of  the  text,  either  theologi- 
cally or  philofogicaUy t  The  text  is:  "Nemos  ou  keitai" 
meaning  the  law  lies  not  against.     The  law  is  made  for  the 


SCOTTISH   VERSION   VINDICATED.  129 

rule  of  the  righteous  man's  life ;  but  its  penalty  lies  not 
against  him,  but  against  the  unrighteous  man. 

In  Rev.  xviii.  13,  the  word  "  somaton"  meaning  bodies, 
is  rendered  "  slaves." 

In  Lev.  xxv.  44,  and  elsewhere,  we  have  the  mistrans- 
lation of  the  words,  "  abed  and  amath"  by  bondmen  and 
bondmaids,  when  the  meaning  is  simply  servants,  not  slaves, 
as  the  translators  meant.  King  James'  translators  were  pro- 
episcopacy  and  pro-slavery,  else  why  "Easter"  and  "  slave?" 

In  reviewing  all  the  gross  mistranslations  charged  upon 
our  Scottisli  version  we  find,  upon  actual  and  candid  ex- 
amination, only  a  single  word  or  two,  while  many  the  most 
glaring  are  actually  found  in  our  prose  Bible.  In  glancing 
over  but  a  limited  portion  of  our  common  Bible  we  find 
actually  over  one  hundred  gross  mistranslations,  for  which 
there  can  be  no  apology  or  clearing  explanation.  We 
believe  we  can  find  hundreds  more  of  the  same  class,  many 
perhaps  not  so  gross,  but  yet  mistranslations.  We  have  not 
been  comparing  King  James'  Bible  with  the  Bishops',  nor 
with  any  other  translation,  not  even  the  Septuagint  or  Vul- 
gate. Tyros  and  tricksters,  conscious  of  a  bad  cause,  may 
resort  to  such  comparisons.  In  this  way  wre  have  had 
Rouse  exposed  to  invidious  gaze  ad  nauseam.  Had  the 
enemies  of  a  scripture  psalmody  been  content  with  truth 
and  the  exposure  of  facts,  had  they  kindly  pointed  out  to 
us  the  expansions  and  amplifications  that  may  mar  and 
weaken  our  translation,  and  had  they  tested  these  by  the 
true  standard,  wre  should  certainly  have  thanked  them. 
Such  fraternal  smiting  would  have  been  an  oil  to  our  heads. 
But,  no,  our  friends,  with  an  erring  standard,  imperfect 
like  our  own  version,  pronounce  upon  its  imperfections. 
And,  not  content  with  this  farce  and  insulting  mockery, 
they  add  grim  caricature  and  smarting  misrepresentation. 
Of  these  by-and-by. 


130  PSALMODY. 

Before  passing  to  another  feature  in  the  comparison  of 
versions,  we  may  notice  what  will  be  familiar  to  every 
scholar.  The  strong,  sententious  language  and  idiom  of 
the  Hebrew  make  it  difficult  to  bring  out  into  an  English 
translation  its  great  fulness  and  strength  without  apparent 
circumlocution.  And,  when  the  translation  is  in  measured 
verse,  the  difficulty  is  enhanced.  In  translation,  whether 
is  the  error  greater  to  palpably  misconstrue  words  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  giving  for  translation  words  of  different  or 
opposite  meaning;  or,  to  expand  by  a  little  circumlocution, 
while  the  meaning  is  retained  and  the  analogy  of  faith  is 
preserved  inviolate?  Translators  should  endeavor  to  avoid 
all  unnecessary  expansions  ;  yet,  since  these  blemishes  will 
be  found,  so  long  as  erring  men  translate,  are  we  therefore 
to  tell  the  heathen  that  the  Bible,  in  the  hundreds  of  lan- 
guages in  which  we  are  sending  it,  is  nothing  more  than  a 
patchwork  paraphrase,  and  not  the  veritable  inspired  word 
of  God  at  all  ?  Are  we  ready  for  that  ?  Paganism,  Islam- 
ism,  Popery,  Infidelity,  will  all,  with  ecstasy  of  joy,  hail 
this  concession.  Christ  did  not  so  treat  a  translation  in- 
ferior to  both  our  English  Bible  and  our  Scottish  version 
of  the  Book  of  Psalms.  Though  our  Bible,  as  a  transla- 
tion, may  have  its  blemishes,  yet  we  are  not  willing  there- 
fore that  the  "  supreme  judicatory  "  should  "propose"  and 
"sanction"  a  body  of  divinity  or  a  commentary  "suited  to 
the  circumstances,"  and  authorize  its  use  instead  of  the 
Bible.  Nor  for  any  similar  reasons  are  we  willing  that  our 
Psalter  should  yield  to  any  similar  substitute. 

"ROUSE'S   PATCIHVOIIK   PARAI>IIRASE." 

In  replying  to  the  charge  of  "patchivork"  drawn  out  in 
masterly  tactician  form  against  Rouse,  we  wish  to  notice, 
first,  some  of  the  violations  of  the  rules  of  honorable  con- 
troversy.    Honorable  men,  in  honorable  controversy,  will 


SCOTTISH    VERSION    VINDICATED.  131 

state  with  truth  and  candor  the  positions  of  an  opponent. 
In  giving  specimens  of  "patchwork  "  our  friends  should  not 
make  for  as  patches  of  whole  cloth,  and  then  tag  them  to  our 
old  coat,  once  of  noble  texture,  warp  and  woof,  long  worn 
by  our  fathers,  because  now  perhaps  a  little  threadbare,  or 
its  cut  a  little  out  of  fashion. 

MANUFACTURED  PATCHES  CHARGED  TO  ROUSE. 

In  our  prose  Bible,  Ps.  lx.  6,  reads  thus :  "  God  hath 
spoken  in  his  holiness ;  I  will  rejoice."  Alexander  reads 
thus  :  "  God  hath  spoken  in  his  holiness  ;  I  will  triumph." 
Rouse  reads  thus :  "  God  in  his  holiness  hath  said ;  herein 
I  will  take  pleasure."  Each  of  these  is  a  fair  translation, 
without  patch  or  paraphrase.  Yet  our  friends,  in  their 
peculiar  way,  make  and  exhibit  visible  patchwork  in  oppo- 
site columns,  thus : 

PROSE    VERSION.  ROUSE. 

"  God  hath  spoken  in  his  holiness."  "  God  in  his  holiness  hath  said  ; 

Herein  I  will  lake  pleasure." 

Here  they  leave  out,  in  quoting  the  prose,  what  corres- 
ponds to  the  second  line  of  Rouse  in  italics,  and  so  change 
the  entire  line,  a  patch  of  their  own  make,  while  there  is 
not  the  shadow  of  either  patch  or  mistranslation,  beside 
their  own  fabrication  of  whole  cloth.  Were  this  the  only 
case  of  the  kind  we  would  pass  it  as  a  lapsus.  But  no. 
Again,  we  give  the  following  verse  entire  ;  then  the  "patch" 
exhibit ;  Ps.  Ixvi.  6  : 

PROSE.  ROUSE. 

"He  turned  the  sea  into  dry  land;  "Into  dry  land  the  sea  he  turned, 
they  went  through  the  flood  on  foot;  And  they  a  passage  had; 

there  did  we  rejoice  in  him."  Ev'n  marching  through  the  flood 

on  foot, 
There  we  in  him  were  glad." 

Now,  the  patch  exhibit: — 

"  And  they  a  passage  had, 
Kr'n  marching  through  the  flood  on  foot.'* 


132  PSALMODY. 

This  second  line  is  marked  in  italics  to  brand  it  as  a 
patch,  for  which  there  is  nothing  in  the  original!  Is  there 
either  truth  or  candor  in  this  exhibit? 

In  Ps.  xxxii.  6,  we  have  another  startling  exhibit.  To 
see  it  the  better  we  give  three  translations  of  the  clause : — 

TROSE.  ALEXANDER. 

"  Surely   in   the  floods  of  great  "Surely  at  the  overflow  of  many 

waters  they    shall  not  come  nigh  waters, 

unto  him."  Unto  him  they  shall  not  reach/' 

Rouse.       , 
"Surely,  when  floods  of  waters  great  do  swell  up  to  the  brim, 
They  shall  not  overwhelm  his  soul,  nor  once  come  near  to  him." 

Now  see  the  exhibit,  which  truly  sets  Rouse  in  a  ludi- 
crous light,  thus : — 

"  Surely  when  floods  of  waters  great 
Do  swell  np  to  the  brim, 
They  shall  not  overwhelm  his  soul, 
Kor  once  come  near  to  him." 

Here  the  first  and  fourth  lines  are  presumed  to  be  from 
the  original ;  the  middle  lines  patches.  Howr,  then,  will 
the  original  read  without  the  patches? — the  pure  original? 
Let  us  see: — 

"Surely  when  floods  of  waters  great 


Nor  once  come  near  to  him.' 


Take  Ps.  lxxviii.   33 — writing  Eouse,  leaving  italics  in 
blank — we  shall  see  how  the  original  is  made  to  read : — 

"Wherefore  their  days  in  vanity  lie  did  consume,      .     .     . 
And     ....     their     ...     in  trouble     .     .     ." 

In  Ps.  lxxxiv.  12,  they  exhibit,  by  leaving  out  the  italics, 

thus  : — 

u  Who  by     ....     on  thee  alone  doth  rest." 

This  represented  as  the  text,  or  rule  by  which  JRoicse  is 


SCOTTISH   VERSION   VINDICATED.  133 

condemned  as  a  patchwork,  suggests  on  the  face  of  it  some- 
thing omitted  for  effect.  But  supplying,  as  we  have  in  the 
metrical  version,  we  have  just  what  the  Hebrew  warrants — 
"assured  confidence."  So  "  Baithhe"  means — as  to  hang 
close,  cling  fast  to,  etc.,  and  is  expressive  of  full  assurance. 
But  Rouse  uses  two  words  of  many  syllables  —  "rest  by 
assured  confidence,"  for  trust  in  God.  Now,  if  long  words 
make  patches,  we  had  better,  in  translating,  use  monosyl- 
lables.    Are  there  no  polysyllables  in  the  prose  version  ? 

These  examples  are  only  specimens  of  skill  in  garbling, 
misquoting,  mis-italicizing  Rouse,  the  better  to  make  out  a 
case.  When  these  manufactured  changes  are  deducted, 
and  then  the  misconstructions  and  exaggerations,  the 
patches  will  dwindle  into  proportions  common  to  all  faith- 
ful translations,  our  prose  version  not  excepted. 

MISCONSTRUCTIONS   TO    EXHIBIT    PATCHES. 

We  mean  by  misconstruction,  the  charging  upon  Rouse, 
as  damaging  patchivork,  blemishes  common  to  both 
versions.  If  expletives,  in  the  form  of  qualifying  words, 
or  adjectives,  etc.,  are  found  frequently  in  prose,  as  they 
are,  and  these  destroy  not  its  claim  to  our  recognition  as 
the  word  of  God,  why  deny  the  same  justice  to  the  metrical 
version  ?     This  we  think  is  both  plain  and  fair 

Examples. 

PROSE    VERSION.  ROUSE. 

Ps.  cii.  6.     "I  am  like  a  pelican  of  "  Like  pelican  in  wilderness, 

the  wilderness."  Forsaken  I  have  been." 

We  wish  this  to  be  carefully  noticed,  as  an  example 
illustrating  principles  here.  The  second  line  is  set  down 
as  a  large  and  damaging  patch  of  "human  composition," 
and  so  italicized.  Now  notice — the  first  line  fails  to  make 
sense,  the  verb  of  the  sentence  is  left  out,  consigned  to 
12 


134  PSALMODY. 

italics.  Perhaps,  because,  put  in  the  preterite  tense,  "  I 
have  been,"  of  the  metre,  is  as  agreeable  to  the  Hebrews  as 
"  I  am  "  of  the  prose.  Then  in  all  fairness  our  friend  should 
have  written  us  thus — "  I  have  been  like  a  pelican  in  the 
wilderness."  This  leaves  the  patch,  really  and  honestly, 
very  small,  only  the  qualifying  word,  "forsaken."  But 
the  pelican  is  a  bird  of  solitude,  and  its  use  here  is  to  sug- 
gest the  idea  of  loneliness  in  the  text.  If  such  idea  be  in 
the  text,  and  if,  in  composition  similar,  similar  qualifying 
expletives  are  frequently  found  in  the  prose,  as  we  shall 
show,  then  the  damaging  patch  disappears. 

The  succeeding  clause  furnishes  an  illustration  of  the 
same  principle  : 

"  I  am  like  an  owl  of  the  desert."  I  am  like  the  hooting  night-bird 

of  the  desert.  ' 

Another  class  of  Examples. 

"  I  delayed  not."  "  I  did  not  stay,  nor  linger  long. 

As  those  that  slothful  are." 

The  Hebrew  word  here  is  difficult  to  render  fully  with- 
out circumlocution.  We  believe  it  is  never  found  in  Kal ; 
but  in  most  instances,  as  here  in  the  Psalm,  in  the  Hith- 
pael.  As  a  participle  here,  with  its  reflective  signification, 
it  maybe  rendered: — I  did  not  stand  to  ask  questions, 
how,  whatf  I  did  not  stand  still-I — shall-I  ?  or  dilly, 
dally.  Harder  to  express  than  conceive  the  idea.  In 
such  construction  expletives  are  not  uncommon.  Nor  does 
Rouse  vary  materially  from  the  very  meaning  of  the  text. 

Another  of  the  class, 

"  I  thought  on  my  ways."  "  1  thought  upon  my  former  ways, 

And  did  mi/  lift  ic<i(  trjf%" 

It  will  be  noticed  here,  as  elsewhere,  our  friends  in  using 

their  italic*  rigidly  apply  the    prose  version  as  the  rule. 


SCOTTISH   VERSION   VINDICATED.  135 

Were  they  to  apply  the  original,  often  the  result  would  be 
materially  changed. 

The  Hebrew,  Hashab,  means  more  than  the  prose  ex- 
presses. It  means  to  add — superadd.  Applied  to  thoughts, 
it  means  reflection — meditating  over  the  past — and  is 
copiously  expressed  in  the  amplified  terms  of  our  version. 
What  thought  beyond  the  spirit  of  the  text  is  added  ? 

It  is  not  necessary  that  we  vindicate  every  challenged 
expletive ;  nor  is  it  essential  that  every  one  can  be  vindi- 
cated. No  translation  can  claim  such  perfection.  We 
claim  no  such  perfection  for  our  version.  Nor  can  any 
man  vindicate  the  mistranslations,  or  the  burdensome  and 
unnecessary  expletives  of  our  Bible. 

SPECIMEN   EXPLETIVES   FROM    OUR   COMMON   BIBLE. 

John  viii.  6.  "  But  Jesus  stooped  down,  and  with  his 
finger  wrote  on  the  ground,  as  though  he  heard  them  not." 
Here  is  a  patch  large  enough  to  harm  Rouse  very 
materially,  if  in  the  hands  of  our  friends.  Do  the  words 
of  the  sentence  in  the  original  suggest  the  idea  of  Christ's 
voluntary  deafness,  as  loneliness  is  implied  in  the  Psalm 
above  ?  If  these  six  words  were  not  here,  would  we,  in 
reading  the  words  not  marked  in  italics,  naturally  and 
undoubtedly  entertain  the  idea  that  Christ  did  not  hear, 
or  that  he  was  pretending  not  to  hear?  Is  it  not,  at  least, 
doubtful?  But  in  the  Psalm,  can  any  one  thoughtfully 
read  the  sentence  without  the  word  forsaken,  and  the  ques- 
tion not  occur — hoiv  like  the  pelican  ?  Or  without  the 
idea  of  loneliness  occurring  to  the  mind?  Still,  if  all  this 
be  denied,  on  what  principle  can  we  condemn  the  one 'and 
justify  the  other? 

Acts  xxviii.  4.  "And  when  the  barbarians  saw  the 
venomous  beast  hang."  Here  is  a  qualifying  word  suggested 
from  the  nature  of  the  subject,  though  not  in  the  original, 


loG  PSALMODY. 

and  not  in  the  least  needed  to  make  sense  ;  and  was  fault 

ever  found  with  it,  as  with  scores  of  the  kind  in  the  Bible? 

Rom.  vii.  10.      "  And   the   commandment   which    was 

ordained  to  life,  I  found  to  be  unto  death."  Here  are  two 
verbs  added  ;  one  expressive  of  action  not  implied  in  the 
original,  viz:  was  ordained.  Or,  if  implied,  as  suggested 
by  the  text,  certainly  with  evidence  no  clearer  than,  "  for- 
saken," in  the  Psalm  above.  And  then  why  not  render 
the  sentence  thus :  "  And  the  commandment  for  life,  I 
found  for  death  ?  "  In  all  such  cases  in  Bible  and  in 
Psalm,  let  both  i^o  unchallenged  tooether. 

Bom.  xi.  16.  "  If  the  first  fruit  be  holy,  the  lump  is 
also  holy"  AVe  notice  this  not  only  for  an  offset  to  this 
class  of  patches  now  under  consideration,  but  to  meet  the 
charge  of  adding  "adjectives"  and  qualifying  words.  Hun- 
dreds of  such  are  in  the  prose  Bible.  Of  course  we  can 
stay  to  give  a  few  specimens  only. 

1  Cor.  14.  "  Unknown"  is  used  five  times  to  qualify 
tongue  ;  and  six  times  omitted  where  the  word  tongue  is 
used. 

1  Pet.  iii.  2.  "  Behold  your  chaste  conversation  coupled 
with  fear."  In  this  construction  of  the  sentence,  coupled 
is  a  comment  settling  what  seems  to  be  assumed  as  un- 
certain. Why  not  read  without  the  supplement  thus : 
u  Beholding  in  reverence  your  chaste  conversation  ?  " 

2  Pet.  ii.  18.  "  They  allure  through  the  lusts  of  the 
flesh,  through  much  wantonness."  Here  are  qualifying 
words  not  in  the  original,  of  doubtful  character.  They 
burden  the  sense,  and  change  the  degree  of  the  attribute 
or  quality  of  the  subject  of  the  affirmation.  Such  ex- 
pletives would  be  large  explanation  in  Bouse,  and  a 
damaging  )>atch.     But  certainly  right  in  the  Test-Rule; 

2  Pet.  iii.  1.  "  This  second  epistle,  beloved,  I  now  write 
unto  you  ;  in  both  which — "     I   refer  to  this  not  because 


SCOTTISH  VEESIG5   TTSTjICATED.  137 

the  italicise;  bath"  should  not  be  inserted,  bat 

"..; . -.  >-;    -    -  ;     -  ..  _■      \   -        :  .:  :     — -::_:-  :..-    ;~- 

fkirness  of  the  rule  by  which  oar  brethren  test  oar  version. 

I; 

a  bothT  ration,   whether  Peter  includes 

the  fir*t  with  the  axxmd  epistle,  or  "this,"  the  second  only, 
cannot  be  Ktl  .  rference  to  the  original.     Here 

the  relative  "  wkick  "  being  plural  requires  both,  if  ellipsis 
be  supplied.  Must  all  patches  in  Rouse  of  this  kind, 
because  differing  from  the  prose,  be  condemned  as  can- 
celling its  claim  to  recognition  as  a  version  ? 

Juc  filthy  dreamers  defile  the  flesh." 

se  of  qui 
Boose.     How  do  we  know  whether  these 
filthy  or  chaste  dreamers,  good  or  bad.  true  or  false,  vision- 
ary or   real  ?     Is  filthy  a  divine  or   human   wc  : 
spired  or  uninsplrel  I    How  ii  this,  and  all  snch  cases  ? 
e  are  taunted  in  page  after  page,  and  para- 
graph after  paragraph.     Is  this  kind  of  thing  fair  ? 

Job  xii.  6.  m  Into  whose  hand  God  bringeth  rnkmndmrnthj9 
Toadd  the  qualifying  word  here  is  adding  to  the  sense,  and 
h--i:t :!..*.>  :"....:  _-->  :..-.  :  . t :.:.::  z  ~  -  -  '  --  -  -  "3  lz'zi.\z. 
patch  in  Rouse,  and  wou!  "dth 

.     .        '  -  - 
and  grading  n 

Amos  iv.  3.  "  And  ye  shall  go  oat  at  the  breaches, 
tT-ery  .        .-  :".   -    ."..'."    \  \-:  :-  ;  -;." 

How  shall  i:  e  addition  to  the  original  of  these 

words  in  italic*  t  Hot  a  m  1 1  ■  the  verse  or  sentence 
abc  We  have  ::  travel  back  ten  lines  before  we 

find  in  tke  context      U  :ur  brethren  will  justify  the 

patching  here,  it  will  aid  in  answering  many  of  their  objec- 
12* 


138  PSALMODY. 

tions,  and  help  to  chasten  their  Christian  style  of  treating 
the  Book  of  Psalms. 

Exodus  xii.  36.  "  And  the  Lord  gave  the  people  favor 
in  the  sight  of  the  Egyptians,  so  that  they  lent  unto  them 
such  (king*  as  they  required."  Are  our  friends  sure  these 
words  in  italics  are  not  human  ? 

Numbers  xiv.  27.  "  How  long  shall  I  bear  with  this  evil 
congregation,  which  murmur  against  me  ?"  Why  not  read 
thus :  How  long  this  evil  congregation  murmuring  against 
me  ?     Rather  different  reading. 

2  Sam.  xx.  19.  "I  am  of  them  that  are  peaceable."  "  I 
peaceable"  is  inspired ;  are  the  other  six  words  ? 

1  Kings  xx.  12.  "  Set  yourselves  in  array.  And  they  set 
themselves  in  array  against  the  city."  Set,  and  they  set 
against  the  city.  A  military  order — form — and  they 
formed  against  the  city. 

2  Kings  x.  24.  "  If  any  of  the  men  whom  I  have  brought 
into  your  hands  escape,  he  that  letteth  him  go  his  life  shall  be 
for  the  life  of  him.,,  Are  these  words:  "  he  that  letteth  him 
go,  shall  be"  inspired  ? 

1  Chron.  xix.  18.  "Seven  thousand  men  which  fought  in 
chariots."     Why  not:  "Seven  thousand  charioteers?" 

1  Chron.  xxviii.  21.  "Behold,  the  courses  of  the  priests 
and  the  Levites,  even  they  shall  be  with  thee  for  all  the  ser- 
vice of  the  house  of  God  ;  and  there  shall  be  with  thee,  for 
all  manner  of  workmanship."  May  we  not  read  thus  : 
"  Behold,  the  courses  of  the  priests  and  the  Levites  with 
thee  for  all  the  service  of  the  house  of-  God,  and  for  all 
manner  of  workmanship?"  Any  human  patches  here? 
Only  nine  or  ten  words. 

Job  xxxiv.  10.  "Far  be  it  from  God  that  he  should  do 
wickedness,  and  from  the  Almighty  that  he  should  commit 
iniquity."  Could  not  the  italics  be  omitted  here,  and  the 
Strength  of  the  sense  increased  ?     Thus  :  "  Wickedness  is 


SCOTTISH   VERSION    VINDICATED.  139 

far  from  God,  iniquity  from  the  Almighty."  Forty-six 
letters  inspired,  forty-six  uninspired.     How  is  this  ? 

Again,  verses  17-19.  "Wilt  thou  condemn  him  that 
is  most  just?  Is  it  fit  to  say  to  a  king,  thou  art  wicked? 
and  to  princes,  ye  are  ungodly  ?  How  much  less  to  him 
that  accepteth  not  the  persons  of  princes. " 

Read  the  "  patches"  grouped  together — Is  it  fit,  thou  art, 
and,  ye  are,  How  much  less  to  him  f" 

Now  read  the  inspired  words  :  "  Wilt  thou  condemn  him 
that  is  most  just,  saying  to  a  king,  wicked  ?  to  princes,  un- 
godly ?  accepting  not  the  persons  of  princes?" 

Reader,  patience  a  moment.  Renlember,  our  friends 
charge  on  our  version  explanations,  additions,  repetitions, 
human  compositions ;  and  conclude,  therefore,  Rouse  is 
"  no  version  at  all."  We  wish  to  show  that  they  prove  too 
much — proving  our  version,  no  version,  they  prove  the 
Bible  no  version. 

CONDENSED,    PROMISCUOUS   GROUPING   EXAMPLES   FOR 
ILLUSTRATION. 

"For  they  considered  not  the  miracle  of  the  loaves." 
"  For  they  considered  not  the  loaves."  "  The  miracle  "  is 
an  explanation,  is  comment,  not  translation,  strictly. 

"  Is  not  mine  to  give,  but  it  shall  be  given  to  them  for 
whom  it  is  prepared."  Text :  "  Is  not  mine  to  give,  but 
for  whom  prepared."  This  occurs  in  several  instances,  and 
always  unnecessarily. 

"Two  women  shall  be  grinding  at  the  mill."  Text: 
"  Two  grinding  at  the  mill." 

M  Ye  know  that  after  two  days  is  the  feast  of  the  pass- 
over."  "  After  two  days  is  the  passover."  This  occurs 
again  and  again  in  the  New  Testament,  only  burdening 
the  force  of  the  expression. 

"  A  certain  man  planted  a  vineyard,  and  set  a  hedge 


140  PSALMODY. 

around  U,  and  digged  a  place  for  the  winefat."  Text:  "A 
man  planted  a  vineyard,  hedged  and  digged  a  winefat.M 

"  For  ye  know  not  when  the  time  is ;  for  the  Son  of  man 
is  as  a  man  taking  a  far  journey."  Text :  "  For,  as  a  man 
taking  a  far  journey,  ye  know  not  when  the  time  is."  Is 
there  not  here,  first,  a  useless  addition ;  and  second,  ail 
improper  use  of  "  The  sacred  Name  f" 

In  Luke  iii.  23-38,  we  have  seventy-five  repetitions  of 
two  words,  making  150  words  in  fifteen  verses,  without 
corresponding  words  in  the  original,  and  adding  no  strength 
to  the  meaning. 

"But  this  cometh  to  pass  that  the  word  might  be  fulfilled. 
Text:  "  But  that  the  word  might  be  fulfilled." 

"Because  their  country  was  nourished  by  the  king's 
country"     Why  not  by  the  king's  "  bounty  f" 

"  Especially  because  I  know  thee  to  be  expert."  Why 
not  thus :  "  Since  thou  art  expert  ?" 

"  Therefore,  as  by  the  offence  of  one  judgment  came  upon 
all  men  to  condemnation ;  even  so  by  the  righteousness  of 
one,  the  free  gift  came  upon  all  men."  Here  is  addition 
upon  addition,  darkening  rather  than  explaining.  This  is 
the  simple  statement :  "  As  through  one  offence — so  through 
one  righteousness." 

"  Because  they  sought  it  not  by  faith."  Text :  "  Because 
not  by  faith." 

"  Who  have  not  bowed  the  knee  to  the  image  of  Baal." 
Text :  "  Who  have  not  bowed  the  knee  to  Baal." 

"  My  brethren,  by  them  which  are  of  the  house  of  Chloe." 
Text:  "My  brethren,  by  them  of  Chloe." 

"Who  makcth  thee  to  differ  from  another?"  Text: 
"Who  distinguish  thee?" 

u  A  dispensation  of  the  gospel  is  committed  unto  me." 
Text:  "I  am  intrusted  with  a  stewardship." 

"  It  is  not  permitted  unto  them  to  speak ;  but  they  are 


SCOTTISH   VERSION   VINDICATED.  141 

commanded  to  be  under  obedience."  Text :  "  It  is  not  per- 
mitted unto  them  to  speak,  but  to  be  under  obedience." 
This  patch  is  pretty  broad  and  stem. 

"For  one  star  differeth  from  another  star  in  glory." 
Better:  "Star  differeth  from  star  in  glory."  This  speci- 
men of  slight  addition,  apparently  trifling,  yet,  to  any  com- 
petent scholar,  it  clearly  weakens  the  text,  and  mars  its 
sublimity  and  euphony.  Even  secular  journals  are  noticing 
these  things,  and  suggesting  the  importance  of  a  general 
revision  of  the  whole  Bible.  Another  instance  of  appa- 
rently trifling  use  of  ellipsis,  yet  materially  affecting  the 
sense : — 

"  The  last  enemy  that  shall  be  destroyed  is  death."  Is 
not  the  averment  here  the  order  of  destruction  ? — death  the 
last  enemy  to  be  destroyed  ?  Whereas,  is  not  this  the  affir- 
mation of  the  text :  "  Death,  the  last  enemy,  shall  be  de- 
stroyed ?"  Is  not  the  office,  and  effect  of  these  expletives 
obviously  comment? 

"  But  now  much  more  diligent,  upon  the  great  confidence 
which  I  have  in  you.  Whether  any  do  inquire  of  Titus,  he 
is  my  partner  and  fellowr-helper  concerning  you ;  or  our 
brethren  be  inquired  of,  they  are  the  messengers  of  the 
churches."  Text :  "  Upon  the  great  confidence  in  you,  or 
of  Titus,  my  partner  and  fellow-helper,  concerning  you  ;  or 
our  brethren,  the  messengers  of  the  churches." 

"  The  law  was  our  schoolmaster  to  bring  us  unto  Christ." 
Or,  "  Oar  schoolmaster  unto  Christ." 

"  For  that  day  shall  not  come"     Text :  "  For." 

This  last  specimen  looks  so  much  like  the  examples  of 
our  friends,  we  place  in  juxta-position  the  following — -par 
nob  He  !  : — 

PROSE    VERSION.  ROUSE. 

"I  delayed  not."  "I  did  not  stay,  nor  linger  long, 

Aa  those  that  vlothful  are," 


142  PSALMODY. 

"  Neither  give  heed  to  .  .  .  which  minister  questions,  rather 
than  godly  edifying,  which  is  in  faith  ;  so  do."  Do  what  ? 
Paul  dissuades  Timothy  in  the  text.  And  this  patch  breaks 
the  connection  with  the  verse  following : — 

"  Forbidding  to  marry,  and  commanding  to  abstain  from 
meats."     Text :  "  Forbidding  to  marry,  and  to  use  meats." 

"  I  pray  God  that  it  may  not  be  laid  to  their  charge." 
Text :  "  May  it  not  be  laid  to  their  charge."  Is  this  "  patch' ' 
needed  here  to  supply  anything?  And,  then,  does  this  pro- 
fane the  Divine  name,  as  charged  upon  our  version  ? 

u  And  not  for  ours  only,  but  also  for  the  sins  of  the  whole 
world,"  Text :  "  And  not  for  ours  only,  but  also  for  the 
whole  world."  Is  this  not  comment,  unnecessarily  imping- 
ing upon  a  theological  controversy? 

"  And  I  will  write  upon  him  my  new  name."  Text : 
"  And  my  new  name."     Is  this  repetition  ? 

We  have  selected  from  a  part  of  our  English  Bible  a  few 
specimens  only  out  of  hundreds  upon  hundreds  found  in 
the  Test-Rule  of  our  brethren.  Space  and  our  readers' 
patience  forbid  extension. 

One  class  more  of  charges  requires  attention  : 

THE    USE    OF    THE    DIVINE    NAMES   AND   ATTRIBUTES. 

Everything  that  can  excite  prejudice  against  our  Scot- 
tish version  of  the  Psalms  has  been  ingeniously  paraded 
and  emblazoned  on  the  pages  of  controversy,  and  spread 
out  before  the  gaze  of  the  public  eye.  And  all  this  for 
partisan  effect,  as  ungenerous  as  injurious.  It  is  distinctly 
insinuated  that  House  is  guilty  of  profaning  the  Divine 
name  by  its  use  when  it  is  not  found  in  the  original.  We 
are  challenged  thus:  "  Can  this  be  a  sacred  use  of  these 
awful  TlTLE8  of  the  Sovereign  of  all  worlds?" 

We  admit  that  in  some  instances  the  charge  against 
House  is,  at  least,  worthy  of  consideration.     If  there  were 


SCOTTISH    VERSION   VINDICATED.  143 

no  such  instances  in  the  prose  Bible  we  should,  perhaps 
feel  startled  at  the  bold  charge.  I  presume  here,  as  else 
where,  our  friends  did  not  think  of  this  when  hurling  stones 
at  Rouse.  Had  the  facts  been  before  their  minds  it  is  pre 
sumed  that,  as  skilled  controversialists,  they  would  have 
written  with  more  modesty  and  Christian  charity.  In 
many  instances,  where  the  translators  of  our  Bible  use  the 
Divine  name,  no  principle  or  rule  of  translating  requires 
such  licence.  We  are  not  prepared  to  vindicate  or  censure. 
The  right  or  wrong  here  is  for  our  brethren  to  settle.  Indeed, 
this  should  have  been  done  before  committing  themselves 
to  the  condemnation  of  their  standard  by  which  they  con- 
demn us.  Were  this  thing  wrong,  and  our  common  Bible 
innocent,  we  should  make  concessions. 

We  have  hastily  run  our  eye  over  several  books  of  the 
Bible,  and  have  noticed  about  eighty  instances  of  the  use 
of  the  Divine  name  where  it  is  wanting  in  the  original.  It 
is  probable  there  are  more  than  one  hundred  instances  in 
the  entire  Bible.  Nor  are  we  prepared  to  say  that  there  is 
a  single  instance  in  which  the  Divine  name  might  not  be 
omitted  without  prejudice  to  the  sense,  either  by  the  use  of 
the  pronoun,  or  by  changing  the  structure  of  the  sentence. 

SPECIMENS    OF    TRANSLATORS*    USE    OF    THE   DIVINE    NAME 
WHERE    WANTING    IN    THE   ORIGINAL. 

Deut.  xvi.  10:  "And  thou  shalt  keep  the  feast  of  weeks 
unto  the  Lord  thy  God  with  a  tribute  of  a  free-will  offer- 
ing of  thine  hand,  which  thou  shalt  give  unto  the  Lord 
thy  God,  according  as  the  Lord  thy  God  hath  blessed  thee." 
The  omission  could  not  impair  the  sense  here. 

Deut.  xxxiii.  12:  "The  beloved  of  the  Lord  shall  dwell 
in  safety  by  him ;  and  the  Lord  shall  cover  him  all  the 
day  long." 

2  Chron.  iii.  1 :  "  Then  Solomon  besnm  to  build  the  house 


144  PSALMODY. 

of  the  Lord  at  Jerusalem  in  Mount  Moriah,  where  the  Lord 
appeared  unto  David."     Why  not  the  pronoun  here? 

2  Chron.  xvii.  4 :  "  But  sought  to  the  Lord  God  of  his 
father."     Superfluous  here. 

Neh.  vi.  9 :  "  Now,  therefore,  0  God,  strengthen  my 
hands."     Similar  to  many  Psalms. 

Isa.  xxvi.  1 :  "  Salvation  will  God  appoint  for  walls  and 
bulwarks."  This  being  song  is  similar,  in  its  use  of  the 
Divine  name,  to  many  of  the  cases  occurring  in  the  Psalms. 

Acts  vii.  59 :  "  And  they  stoned  Stephen  calling  upon 
God,  and  saying,  Lord  Jesus  receive  my  spirit."  Evidently 
unnecessary  here.  A  different  construction  will  make  the 
name  superfluous. 

1  Cor.  xvi.  2 :  "  Let  every  one  of  you  lay  by  him  in 
store,  as  God  hath  prospered  him." 

Rom.  ix.  4 :  "  To  whom  pertaineth  the  adoption,  and  the 
glory,  and  the  covenants,  and  the  giving  of  the  law,  and 
the  service  of  God,  and  the  promises."  McKnight  reads : 
"  And  the  worship,  and  the  promises." 

James  ii.  1 :  "  Have  not  the  faith  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  the  Lord  of  glory."  This  can  be  avoided  by  other 
wise  constructing  the  sentence. 

2  Tim.  iv.  16  :  "  I  pray  God  that  it  may  not  be  laid  to 
their  charge."  There  can  be  no  plea  for  the  use  of  the 
Divine  name  more  than  in  any  Psalm  where  it  is  used.  The 
meaning  is  simply :  "  Let  it  not  be  laid  to  their  charge." 

Heb.  ix.  6  :  "  The  priests  went  always  into  the  first  taber- 
nacle, accomplishing  the  service  of  God."  Here  the  service 
of  the  tabernacle  is  the  reference,  and  the  Divine  name 
superfluous. 

Col.  i.  19  :  "  For  it  pleased  the  Father  that  in  him  should 
all  fulness  dwell."  The  insertion  here  is  not  only  super- 
fluous, but  raises  a  theological  question  that  belongs  to 
exposition,  not  to  translation. 


SCOTTISH    VERSION    VINDICATED.  145 

1  Thess.  v.  23 :  "  And  the  very  God  of  peace  sanctify 
you  wholly ;  and  I  pray  God  your  whole  spirit  and  soul 
and  body  be  preserved." 

In  Ps.  xxiv.  6,  the  Septuagint  supplies  the  Divine  name : 
"  God  of  Jacob."  And  our  prose  Bible  supplies  twice  in 
Ps.  cxxxii.  2  and  5 :  *  Mighty  God  of  Jacob." 

Gen.  xliv.  7 :  "  God  forbid  that  thy  servants  should  do 
according  to  this  thing."  And  verse  17:  "And  he  said: 
God  forbid  that  I  should  do  so."  The  Hebrew  word  Halile 
is  so  translated  in  the  Old  Testament  some  eight  or  ten 
times,  where  there  is  no  more  need  for  using  the  Divine 
name  than  in  the  instances  charged  against  Rouse.  "Far 
be  it"  or  some  such  equivalent,  wTould  as  faithfully  trans- 
late the  original  as,  "  God  forbid"  and  so  escape  the  indirect 
charge,  preferred  by  our  friends,  of  profanely  using  the 
Divine  name. 

Luke  xx.  16  :  "  And  when  they  heard  it  they  said  :  "  God 
forbid"—"  Mee  genoito" 

Rom.  iii.  4,  6,  31 :  "  God  forbid ;"  given  as  the  rendering 
of  the  Greek,  which  simply  means — "  By  no  means,"  and 
fully  renders  the  original.     See  McKnigliL 

This  misuse  of  the  Divine  name  occurs  some  fifteen  times 
in  the  New  Testament ;  some  twenty-three  times  at  least  in 
the  Bible  ;  beside  the  other  forms,  in  all  perhaps  more  than 
one  hundred  times.  In  many  instances,  similar  to  those 
where  the  Divine  name  is  used,  its  insertion  does  not  occur, 
which  suggests  a  doubt  in  regard  to  the  necessity  of  such 
rendering  in  any  instance.  And  what  is  the  more  singular 
here,  in  these  twenty-three  instances,  italics  are  not  used, 
as  in  other  cases  where  the  reader  is  informed  there  is  no 
corresponding  word  in  the  original. 

We  cannot  extend  quotations.  Five  or  six  times  the 
number  might  have  been  added.  Enough  to  show  the 
animus  of  our  extreme  critics.     It  is  presumed  that  where 


146  PSALMODY 

the  Divine  Being  is  the  object  or  suoject  of  a  sentence,  our 
translators  have  not  scrupled  to  write  the  name.  Perhaps 
they  had  not  studied  the  subject  as  carefully  as  our  pious 
friends  of  the  hymn-book — perhaps  not  so  tenderly  scrupu- 
lous in  their  conscience.  Under  all  the  circumstances  we 
shall  leave  this  question  of  casuistry  sub  judice,  hoping  our 
friends  will  issue  an  exegetical  thesis  which  will  save  us 
and  all  our  translators  from  future  blunders. 

We  would  here,  in  the  mean  time,  before  parting  with 
our  friends,  venture,  in  a  fraternal  and  charitable  spirit,  to 
advise  them  to  extend  their  acquaintance  with  their  Bible. 
It  will  aid  them  in  their  warfare  upon  translations.  It  may 
save  them  from  exposing  their  want  of  reasonable  know- 
ledge of  subjects  on  which  they  can  write  with  wonderful 
assurance  and  flippancy.  It  may  greatly  simplify  their 
style,  and  save  them  from  that  most  repulsive  and  charac- 
teristic ex  cathedra  feature  of  their  polemic  discussions  of 
this  favorite  subject. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

THE  SCOTTISH  VERSION  COMPARED  WITH  THE   SEPTUAGINT. 

Why  this  comparison — Its  importance  in  this  discussion — The  established 
opinion  and  decision  of  the  Churches  in  regard  to  the  Stptuagint  as  a 
translation — Its  defects  compared  with  those  of  the  Scottish  version — The 
claims  of  the  Scottish  version  sustained  by  such  comparison — Luther's 
translation  incidentally  noticed — Inferences. 

The  claims  of  any  particular  version  are  not  to  be  set- 
tled finally  by  comparison  with  any  other  received  version. 
The  original  text  is  the  only  true  test,  and  by  this  ours 
must  stand  or  fall.  Yet,  on  several  accounts,  it  becomes 
essential  to  our  discussion  to  compare  the  Scottish  version 
with  others  long  received  and  acknowledged. 

First,  because  our  friends  have  made  a  received  transla- 
tion a  test  by  which  they  have  with  extreme  severity  put 
our  version  on  trial. 

Second,  because,  if  our  version  will  compare  favorably 
with  other  received  versions,  our  friends  are  refuted  on  their 
own  chosen  ground,  and  our  version  is  sustained  triumph- 
antly against  unreasonable  cavil. 

Third,  because,  though  this  is  argumentum  ad  hominum, 
yet  it  seems  to  be  the  only  and  last  resort  through  which 
to  meet  our  oppponents,  and  silence  their  unreasonable 
charges  and  appeals  to  popular  prejudice  and  ignorance. 

The  Protestant  churches,  in  this  age  of  Bible  translation 
and  dissemination,  are  not  prepared  for  the  condemnation 
of  any  one  version  because  not  perfect,  and  because  some 
blemish  may  be  found  not  common  to  all  other  versions, 
since  all  versions  are  human,  and  each   may  have  some 

147 


148  PSALMODY. 

peculiar  defect  of  its  own.  Our  point  in  this  chapter  is  not 
how  good  our  version  may  be ;  but  has  it,  on  comparison 
with  others,  a  right  to  a  fellowship  among  other  recognized 
versions  of  the  Scriptures  ? 

There  are  four  recognized  translations,  of  long  and  estab- 
lished reputation,  in  four  different  languages.  The  Sep- 
tuagint  in  the  Greek,  the  Vulgate  in  the  Latin,  Luther's 
Bible  in  the  German,  and  our  own  in  the  English.  Opinions 
may  differ  in  regard  to  their  respective  merits  as  versions. 
The  Septuagint  has  enjoyed  a  longer  and  more  universal 
recognition  than  any  one  of  the  others.  The  Jews,  the 
Greek  and  Roman  Catholics  and  Protestants,  have  ap- 
pealed to  the  Greek  Bible  of  the  Seventy  as  the  inspired 
word  of  God,  as  we  appeal  to  our  English  Bible.  A  ver- 
sion that  has  been  recognized  by  the  whole  Church  for  two 
thousand  years  can  hardly  be  ignored  as  a  patchwork  or 
paraphrase  for  the  sake  of  effect  in  controversy.  If  it  be  a 
translation,  and  yet  more  and  grosser  mistranslations  are 
found  in  it  than  can  be  found  in  the  Scottish  version  of  the 
Psalms,  then  this  is  a  translation.  In  a  question  of  this 
kind  the  harmonious  statements  of  standard  and  unchal- 
lenged authors  should  be  received  without  challenge. 

THE    SEPTUAGINT. 

We  quote  from  the  deservedly  celebrated  Prof.  Gaussen, 
of  Geneva,  Switzerland,  on  the  Inspiration  of  the  Bible,  pp. 
161-163:— 

"  The  sacred  authors  of  the  New  Testament,  when  they 
themselves  quote  the  old  Hebrew7  Scriptures  in  Greek,  em- 
ploy for  that  purpose  the  Greek  translation,  so  called  of  the 
Seventy,  executed  at  Alexandria  two  centuries  and  a  half 
before  Jesus  Christ. 

"  No  more  is  required,  in  fact,  than  to  study  the  manner 
in  which  the  Apostles  employ  the  Septuagint,  in  order  to 


SCOTTISH    VERSION    COMPARED   WITH   SEPTUAGINT.      149 

see  in  it  a  striking  sign  of  the  verbal  inspiration  under 
which  they  wrote. 

"Although  it  was  the  universal  practice  of  the  Hellenistic 
Jews,  throughout  the  whole  East,  to  read  in  their  syna- 
gogues and  to  quote  in  their  discussions  the  Old  Testament, 
according  to  that  ancient  version,  the  Apostles  show  us  the 
independence  of  the  spirit  that  guided  them  by  the  three 
several  methods  they  follow  in  their  quotations." 

These  quotations,  if  their  accuracy  be  admitted,  prove — 
First,  that  the  Jews,  two  hundred  and  fifty  years  before 
Christ,  used,  in  their  synagogues,  the  Septuagint  as  the 
Scriptures  in  their  vernacular  tongue.  Second,  Christ  and 
his  Apostles  found  this  Greek  copy  of  the  Scriptures  in  the 
synagogues  of  the  Jews  generally  —  always  where  they 
understood  the  Greek  language.  Third,  the  writers  of  the 
New  Testament  wrote  in  the  same  language,  and  quote 
from  the  Septuagint  as  from  a  generally  recognized  ver- 
sion. 

We  quote  from  Smith's  Bible  Dictionary,  p.  507  : — ■ 

"The  Septuagint  version  was  highly  esteemed  by  the 
Hellenistic  Jews  before  the  coming  of  Christ.  The  manner 
in  which  it  is  quoted  by  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament 
proves  that  it  had  been  long  in  general  use.  Wherever,  by 
the  conquests  of  Alexander,  or  by  colonization,  the  Greek 
language  prevailed  ;  wherever  Jews  were  settled,  and  the 
attention  of  the  neighboring  Gentiles  was  drawn  to  their 
wondrous  history  and  law,  there  was  found  the  Septuagint, 
which  thus  became,  by  Divine  Providence,  the  means  of 
spreading  widely  the  knowledge  of  the  One  True  God,  and 
his  promises  of  u  Saviour  to  come,  throughout  the  nations. 
Not  less  wide  was  the  influence  of  the  Septuagint  in  the 
spread  of  the  Gospel.  The  Ethiopian  eunuch  was  reading 
the  Septuagint  version  of  Isaiah  in  his  chariot.  They  who 
were  scattered  abroad  went  forth  into  many  lands  speaking 
13* 


150  PSALMODY. 

of  Christ  in  Greek,  and  pointing  to  the  things  written  of 
Him  in  the  Greek  version  of  Moses  and  the  Prophets." 

Besides  confirming  Gaussen,  this  testimony  shows  how 
this  translation  went  with  the  New  Testament  Scriptures 
in  their  diffusion  wherever  Christianity  spread  in  the  first 
Christian  centuries ;  and  so  the  whole  Bible,  Old  and  New 
Testaments,  went  together  in  the  same  language.  No  trans- 
lation ever  had  a  more  universal  recognition  as  the  word 
of  God  in  any  age  or  in  any  country. 

From  Home  we  make  the  following  quotations,  vol.  i., 
pp.  264,  etc. : — 

"  Among  the  Greek  versions  of  the  Old  Testament,  the 
Alexandrian  or  Septuagint,  as  it  is  generally  termed,  is  the 
most  ancient  and  valuable ;  and  was  held  in  so  much 
esteem,  both  by  the  Jews  and  by  the  first  Christians,  as  to 
be  constantly  read  in  the  synagogues  and  churches.  Hence 
it  is  uniformly  cited  by  the  early  Fathers,  whether  Greek 
or  Latin ;  and  from  this  version  all  the  translations  into 
other  languages  which  were  anciently  approved  by  the 
Christian  Church  were  executed,  except  the  Syriac. 

"  The  Septuagint  version  gradually  acquired  the  highest 
authority  among  the  Jews  of  Palestine,  who  were  acquainted 
with  the  Greek  language,  and  subsequently  also  among 
Christians.'' 

References  to  the  same  import  might  be  greatly  extended. 
The  Septuagint  has  for  two  thousand  years  held  a  high  and 
unquestioned  authority  as  a  translation.  Notwithstanding, 
the  current  testimony  makes  equally  clear  that  this  trans- 
lation has  many  defects — abounds  in  mistranslations. 

How  will  it  compare  with  the  Scottish  version? — This 
is  our  present  inquiry.     Home  says,  p.  266  : — 

"  The  translator  of  the  book  of  Job  being  acquainted 
with  the  Greek  poets,  his  style  is  more  elegant  and  studied  ; 
but  he  was  not  sufficiently  master  of  the  Hebrew  language 


SCOTTISH    VERSION   COMPARED    WITH   SEPTUAGINT.      151 

and  literature,  and  consequently  his  version  is  very  erro- 
neous. Many  of  the  historical  passages  are  interpolated ; 
and  in  the  poetical  parts  there  are  several  passages  want- 
ing. Jerome,  in  his  preface  to  the  book  of  Job,  specifies 
as  many  as  seventy  or  eighty.  The  Psalms  and  Prophets 
were  translated  by  men  every  way  unequal  to  the  task." 

Of  Origin  it  is  said :  "  When  any  passages  appeared  in 
the  Septuagint  that  were  not  found  in  the  Hebrew,  he 
designated  them  by  an  obelus.  And,  in  lieu  of  the  very 
erroneous  Septuagint  version  of  Daniel,  Theodotian's  trans- 
lation of  that  book  was  inserted  entire." 

Enough  to  show  the  universal  reputation  of  the  Sep- 
tuagint— first,  as  an  acknowledged  translation  of  the  books 
of  the  Old  Testament ;  and  second,  as  having  many  gross 
mistranslations,  additions,  omissions,  interpolations,  and 
explanations ;  and  with  all  these  defects,  still  never,  even 
by  the  best  scholars,  denounced  as  "patchwork,  para- 
phrase, no  version  at  all."  Such  denunciation  is  left  to 
controversial  extravagance. 

Home  gives  a  list  of  the  quotations  from  the  Old  Testa- 
ment in  the  New,  in  some  of  which  we  have  specimens  of 
the  Septuagint's  mistranslations.  We  shall  give  a  few 
examples : — 

PROSE    VERSION.  SEPTUAGINT. 

Mich.  v.  2  :   "  But  thou,  Bethle-  "  But  as  for  thee,  Bethlehem,  thou 

hem  Ephratah,  though  thou  be  little  house  of  Ephratha,  art  thou  the  least 

among  the  thousands  of  Judah."  (or  too  little  to  become  one)  of  the 

thousands  of  Judah  ?" 

Hos.  xi.  1 :  "  I  .  .  .  called  my  son  "  I   called    his  -children    out    of 

out  of  Egypt."  Egypt." 

Isa.  xlii.  1:  "  Behold  my  servant,  "Jacob  is  my  servant,  I  will  up- 

whom  I  uphold;  mine  elect,  in  whom  hold  him  ;  Israel  is  my  chosen,  my 

my  soul  delighteth."  soul  hath  embraced  him." 

Zech.  xi.  13  :  "  Cast  it  unto  the  "  Put  them  into  the  smelting  fur- 
potter  ;  a  goodly  price  that  I  was  nace,  and  I  will  see  whether  it  is 
prized  at  of  them."  proof,    in   like   manner   as    I   have 

been  proved  by  them." 


152 


PSALMODY. 


PTCOSE    VERSION. 

Zech.  xii.  10:  "They  shall  look 
on  me  whom  they  have  pierced." 

Gen.  xviii.  10:  "  I  will  certainly 
return  unto  thee  according  to  the 
time  of  life." 

Isa.  viii.  14:  "He  shall  be  .  .  . 
for  a  stone  of  stumbling  and  a  rock 
of  offence  to  both  the  houses  of 
Israel." 

Prov.  x.  12 :  "  Love  covereth  all 
sins." 


BEPTUAOIRT. 

"  They  will  look  to  me,  instead  of 
the  things  concerning  which  they 
have  contemptuously  danced." 

"  I  will  return  to  thee  about  this 
time  twelvemonth." 

"And  ye  shall  not  run  against  a 
stumbling  stone,  nor  as  under  a  fall- 
ing rock." 

"  But  friendship  covereth  all  them 
who  are  not  contentious." 


These  are  but  a  small  specimen  of  a  single  class.  We 
might  add  hundreds  more,  and  in  addition  to  the  seventy 
or  eighty  verses  omitted  in  Job.  A  few,  in  addition,  from 
the  book  of  Psalms  : — 


Ps.  iv.  2  :  u  How  long . . .  my  glory 
into  shame  ?" 

Ps.  iv.  3:  "But  know  that  the 
Lord  hath  set  apart  him  that  is 
godly  for  himself." 

Ps.  xvi.  3  :  "  To  the  saints  that 
are  in  the  earth,  and  to  the  excel- 
lent, in  whom  is  all  my  delight." 

Ps.  xxii.  1 :  "Why  h:ist  thou  for- 
saken me  .  .  .  from  the  words  of 
my  roaring?" 

Ps.  ex.  3  :  "  Thy  people  shall  be 
willing  in  the  day  of  thy  power,  in 
the  beauties  of  holiness  from  the 
womb  of  the  morning  :  thou  hast  the 
dew  of  thy  youth." 


"  How  long  will  ye  be  obstinate  V 
(Barukardioi.) 

"But  know  ye  that  the  Lord  has 
made  wonderful  his  saint." 

"To  the  saints  in  his  earth,  in 
thorn  has  he  made  wonderful  all  his 
will." 

Added  :  "  Give  heed  to  me  "  — 
irorda  of  my  tr((n.s<ji'csaion8}  for  "  roar- 
ings." 

"  With  thee  is  the  beginning  in 
the  day  of  thy  power,  in  the  splen- 
dors of  thy  saints.  Out  of  the  womb 
before  the  morning  star  I  begot 
thee." 


This  brief  exhibit  presents  a  very  limited  view  of  even 
specimen  defects  in  the  translations  of  the  Septuagi  at.    Our 

time,  space,  the  nature  of  the  subject,  and  the  patience  of 
our  readers,  suggest  cursory  notice.    AVe  might  here,  in  the 


SCOTTISH   VERSION    COMPARED   WITH   SEPTUAGINT.      153 

same  way,  show  the  errors  of  Luther's  translation.  Subse- 
quent translators  and  commentators  have  made  this  matter 
plain  enough.  Error  in  Luther's  Bible  is  not,  at  this  day, 
a  matter  of  controversy.  Nor  is  it  a  matter  of  question 
whether  any  translation  is  free  from  mistranslations.  It 
may  be  a  matter  of  question  whether  some  of  these  recog- 
nized translations  do  not,  in  their  mistranslations,  surpass 
any  error  that  can  be  found  in  our  Scottish  version. 

In  regard  to  the  comparative  merits  of  Luther's  transla- 
tion, Gaussen  makes  the  following  statement : — 

"  The  version  of  an  accomplished  rationalist,  who  desires 
to  be  no  more  than  a  translator,  I  could  better  trust  than 
that  of  an  orthodox  person  and  a  saint,  who  should  para- 
phrase the  text,  and  undertake  to  present  it  to  me  more 
complete  or  more  clear  in  his  French  than  he  found  it  in 
the  Greek  or  in  the  Hebrew  of  the  original.  And  let  no 
one  be  surprised  at  this  assertion;  it  is  justified  by  facts. 
Thus,  is  not  De  Wette's  translation,  among  the  Germans, 
preferred  at  the  present  day  to  that  even  of  the  great 
Luther?  At  least  is  there  not  greater  confidence  felt  in 
having  the  mind  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  lines  of  the  Basel 
professor  than  in  those  of  the  great  reformer;  because  the 
former  has  always  kept  very  close  to  the  expressions  of  the 
text,  as  a  man  of  learning,  subject  to  the  rules  of  philology 
alone ;  while  the  latter  seems  at  times  to  have  momen- 
tarily endeavored  after  something  more,  and  sought  to  make 
himself  interpreter  as  well  as  translator  ?" 

As  Luther's  Bible  might  be  improved,  so  for  the  same 
reasons  might  our  English  Bible ;  and  it  should  be,  were 

DO* 

the  reliable  instrumentalities  available.  Our  Psalter  might 
be  improved,  and  it  should  be.  We  know  this  and  feel  it. 
In  the  work  of  its  improvement  we  are  making  some  effort. 
And  what  do  these  acknowledged  facts  prove  ?  One  thing 
they  do  not  prove,  with  all  the  blemishes  found — they 


154  PSALMODY. 

don't  prove  these  versions  to  be  "  mere  patchwork,  para- 
phrase, no  versions  at  all."  De  Wette's  version  may  be, 
doubtless  is,  better  than  Luther's.  Is,  therefore,  Luther's 
now,  since  the  publication  of  De  Wette's,  no  translation 
at  all?  Luther's  Bible  is  still  reputed  aversion  of  the 
Scriptures,  the  word  of  God,  as  other  human  translations 
are. 

Should  some  sect,  on  the  ground  of  some  "patches"  in 
our  Bible,  draw  up  a  commentary,  embracing  its  own  creed 
faithfully,  and  "grouping"  all  "essential"  truths  of  the 
Bible,  and  use  it  for  all  the  purposes  for  which  evangelical 
churches  use  the  Scriptures ;  and  should  some  church  re- 
prove for  such  use  of  a  commentary  and  abuse  of  the  word 
of  God,  and  should  it  be  retorted :  "  Three  are  mistransla- 
tions, errors  doctrinal  and  historical,  paraphrases,  explana- 
tions, etc.,  in  your  Bible,  and  you  use  nothing  better  than 
our  commentary,  and  then  our  commentary  needs  no  ex- 
planation,"— would  the  friends  of  the  Bible  own  they  had 
no  inspired  Scriptures,  and  that  they  had  been  under  delu- 
sion about  translations  and  versions  ?  Friends  and  brethren, 
on  all  sides  of  this  controversy,  we  will  venture  to  say  for 
you  all  here,  none  of  us  are  ready  for  any  such  conclu- 
sions. Nor  are  the  friends  of  a  scripture  psalmody  ready  to 
abandon  the  use  of  our  inspired  songs  because  of  the  equally 
unjust  charges  made  against  our  divine  psalter. 

If  Luther's  Bible,  the  Septuagint — saying  nothing  of 
hundreds  of  versions  going  to  the  heathen — and  our  own 
English  version,  have  all  their  defects  in  translation,  and 
yet  are  all  recognized  as  versions  of  the  Scriptures,  how 
can  we  refuse  the  Scottish  version,  as  free  from  mistrans- 
lation as  any  of  them,  a  recognition  to  fellowship  in  the 
family  of  versions?  J  low  cast  it  oil' as  a  "human  com- 
position," and  consign  it  to  cold  fellowship  with  Dr.  Watts' 
imitations  and  hymns?    Candor  demands  for  it  better  com- 


SCOTTISH    VERSION    COMPARED    WITH   SEPTUAGINT.      155 

pany ;  for,  if  it  be  not  the  word  of  God  inspired,  then  we 
have  not  the  word  of  God  inspired  in  the  vernacular 
tongues. 

Until  our  friends  shall  revolutionize  the  entire  theory 
and  practice  of  the  Church  for  two  thousand  years  on  the 
subject  of  versions,  we  shall  remain  unmoved  by  all  their 
refined  amenity  and  Christian  charity,  so  fraternally  ex- 
hibited in  their  charges  upon  Rouse's  "  patchwork,  para- 
phrase, no  version  at  all,  gross  error  in  doctrine." 

It  is  due  to  state  here,  by  way  of  concession,  that,  while 
it  is  true  that  mistranslations  and  blemishes  charged  upon 
Rouse  are  all  of  their  kind,  more  or  less,  found  in  our 
Bible  and  in  the  Septuagint,  even  to  the  violation  of  the 
order  of  the  original,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Septuagint 
changing  the  order  of  the  commandments,  yet  it  is  just  to 
admit  that  there  are  a  few  cases  of  poetic  licence  in  which 
too  much  is  added.  These  occur  in  the  second  versions 
mostly  and  in  the  particular  metres,  as  in  Psalms  cxxiv., 
cxxxvi.,  and  cxliii.  Like  hundreds  of  instances  in  our 
Bible  and  in  the  Septuagint,  these  should  be  reviewed  and 
corrected.  In  this  work  we  are  as  a  church  engaged,  and, 
according  to  our  ability,  are  endeavoring  to  make  progress. 
We  admit,  what  candor  demands  for  every  translation 
known,  there  are  instances  where  correction  should  be 
made.  We  admit,  further,  the  age  and  circumstances  de- 
mand for  the  inspired  Psalms  a  better  dress,  a  higher  lite- 
rary and  poetic  finish.  And  it  is  to  be  hoped  that  these 
Psalms,  now  under  process  of  correction  and  improvement, 
will,  under  a  kind  Providence,  soon  appear  in  an  improved 
form  in  some  measure  equal  to  their  merit. 

Another  consideration  might  be  urged  upon  the  friends 
of  a  Scripture  psalmody.  The  singing,  in  too  many  of  our 
churches,  is  every  way  inferior  to  the  merit  and  claims  of 
our  inspired,  soul-moving  songs.    The  d illness  of  our  music, 


156  PSALMODY. 

and  the  indifference  of  so  many  of  the  friends  of  the  Bible 
Psalms  to  the  cultivation  of  congregational  singing,  give 
occasion  to  charge  the  defect  upon  the  Psalms  themselves. 
There  is  a  life  and  power  in  the  divinely  inspired  songs 
justifying  the  highest  attainments  in  sacred  vocal  music. 


CHAPTER   VII. 

CONCLUSION. 

The  argument  from  history — Very  briefly  noticed — Of  comparatively  little 
importance  in  this  controversy — Yet  some  facts  of  history  with  conside- 
ration— The  Palatinate  Churches — History  not  the  rule  of  faith  and 
worship — The  mistake  and  its  fatal  consequences — Appeal  to  our  readers 
— Address  to  brethren  in  the  ministry — Appeal  to  the  friends  of  union. 

We  do  not  here  propose  to  enter  upon  any  formal  argu- 
ment from  history.  It  has  its  use  and  its  place.  It  is 
neither  legislator  nor  judge.  It  can  settle  nothing  as  a 
matter  of  faith,  of  practice,  or  of  worship.  God's  word, 
revealed  in  the  Scriptures,  alone  authorizes  worship,  with 
all  its  ways  and  forms.  Anything  not  instituted  in  the 
word,  as  a  way  of  worship,  is  not  only  without  authority, 
but  is  sin  forbidden,  is  violation  of  God's  law. 

The  province  of  history  is  to  settle  the  occurrence  of 
events,  as  their  facts,  their  times,  their  places,  their  circum- 
stances ;  but  never  what  is  truth,  or  right,  or  duty,  or  how 
God  is  to  be  worshipped. 

Our  opponents  think  they  find  much  use  for  history  in 
this  controversy,  and  no  doubt  feel  more  at  home  here  than 
in  the  Bible.  They  are  not  alone  here.  Presbyterianism 
finds  more  sturdy  weapons  drawn  from  history — from  "  the 
Fathers  " — levelled  against  her,  than  all  that  can  be  wrested 
from  the  armory  of  God's  word.  Episcopacy,  and  even 
papacy,  draw  their  keenest  blades  from  the  Fathers.  Pres- 
bytery and  its  advocates  are  at  home  in  the  Scriptures. 
Just  so  in  this  controversy,  we  are  not  much  concerned  in 
regard  to  this  section  of  the  field.  If  we  are  able  to  show 
that  argument  from  history  can  avail  our  brethren  but 
14  157 


158  PSALMODY. 

little  in  their  cause  of  uninspired  hymns,  this  is  enough 
for  us.  For,  indeed,  from  the  very  nature  of  the  case  what 
can  history  prove?     Then 

WHAT    IS   THE    SUM    OF    HISTORICAL   EVIDENCE    PROVING 
THE    DIVINE    RIGHT    OF    HYMN-MAKING? 

What  writer  of  hymns,  or  hymn-book,  among  all  tho 
authors  of  the  first  five  centuries  of  the  Christian  era,  has 
been  carried  down  in  history  to  our  times?  Why  has  not 
one  single  psalm,  hymn,  or  spiritual  song,  composed  within 
those  five  centuries,  outlived  the  centuries,  preserved  its 
continuous  use,  its  pristine,  apostolic  redolence,  and  found 
its  way  down  intact  to  our  times?  Why,  the  name  of  not 
one  single  Christian  poet  who  composed,  or  one  single  pres- 
bytery, synod,  assembly,  or  council,  that  received,  examined, 
amended,  authorized  to  be  sung  in  the  worship  of  God,  with 
the  time,  the  place,  or  people  among  whom  such  making, 
adoption,  and  use  occurred?  Why,  since  in  every  century 
the  names  of  so  many  Fathers — so  many  of  their  works  on 
every  topic  of  theology  and  matter  of  history — commenta- 
ries, homilies,  theological  disputations,  defences,  apologies, 
and  even  creeds,  Apostles',  Athanasian,  etc.,  have  all  found 
their  way  down  through  the  ages,  leaving  their  distinct 
traces  upon  their  annals,  and  yet  neither  poet  nor  hymn- 
book  ?  From  the  days  of  Homer  and  Pindar,  down  through 
the  times  of  Horace  and  Virgil,  on  till  the  days  of  Byron, 
every  age  and  language  produced  its  poets  and  its  songs. 
The  world  abounds  in  the  works  of  poets  hundreds  of  years 
before  Christ  and  since ;  but  where  the  record  of  the  poets, 
the  hymns,  and  the  hymn-books  of  the  Church  for  centu- 
ries, till  anti-Christian  apostacy,  corruption  in  worship 
invaded  by  ritualism  the  simplicity  of  divinely  instituted 
worship,  and  made  and  authorized  and  used'  uninspired 
songs  ? 


CONCLUSION.  159 

Since  papal  hymn-singing  and  Ave  Marias  were  intro- 
duced, since  Lutheran  Protestants  have  figured  in  history 
and  as  historians,  since  the  extended  use  of  uninspired  de- 
nominational hymns  among  the  large  and  popular  churches, 
church  records  and  church  history  abound  with  their  allu- 
sions to  poets,  their  hymns,  and  their  hymn-books,  as  things 
with  which  the  annalist  is  as  familiar  as  with  the  Bible, 
with  bible-making,  bible  use,  bible  knowledge,  bible-quo- 
ting. Scarcely  can  any  popular  book  be  written  upon  any 
religious  subject,  from  the  ponderous  quarto  tome  of  the 
most  learned  commentator,  down  to  the  Sabbath-school 
primer,  but  stanzas  and  couplets  from  the  favorite  hymn- 
book  must  embellish  almost  every  page  or  paragraph.  If 
hymn-singing  shall  mark  the  character  of  the  Church  for 
a  thousand  years  to  come,  can  the  name  of  Watts  and  Wes- 
ley, with  their  hymn-books  and  their  hymns,  pass  away 
from  the  page  of  history  and  the  memory  of  a  hymn-singing 
Church  ?  Who  were  the  Watts  and  the  Wesleys  of  the  first 
five  centuries  of  the  Christian  era  ?  Who  were  the  Watts 
and  the  Wesleys  of  the  Waldensian  Churches  ?  Who  made 
the  hymns  in  the  days  and  for  the  Churches  of  Calvin  and 
Knox  ?  Who  made  the  hymns  sung  by  the  brave  Hugue- 
nots under  Henry  of  Navarre,  when  on  their  knees  they 
prayed  and  sung  in  full  chorus  before  smiting  their  ene- 
mies "hip  and  thigh?"  Who  made  the  hymns  sung  by 
the  brave  Republican  Hollanders  before  joining  in  battle 
with  the  terrible  legions  of  Philip?  Even  the  historian 
of  Henry  of  Navarre  and  William  the  Silent,  Prince  of 
Orange,  can  record  the  names  of  the  poets  of  those  times, 
their  hymn-books,  and  their  hymns,  alias  Psalms. 

And  just  here,  by-the-way,  we  have  the  clew  to  the  secret 
of  that  apparently  successful  use  of  history  on  the  part  of 
our  friends,  who,  like  the  friends  of  episcopacy,  find  them- 
selves at  home  in  history  and  among  the  Fathers.     Our 


ICO  PSALMODY. 

own  .Motley,  writing  of  Henry  of  Navarre  and  the  Hugue- 
nots, says  : — 

"  They  went  on  their  knees  before  the  battle,  and  singing 
in  full  chorus  a  Psalm  of  David  before  smiting  the  Philis- 
tines hip  and  thigh." 

He  says,  speaking  of  the  siege  of  Valenciennes,  "  whose 
whole  population  nearly  was  of  the  Calvinistic  faith  :  " — 

"  The  music  of  Marot's  sacred  songs  (a  version  of  the 
Psalms)  happened  that  morning  to  be  sounding  forth  from 
every  belfry  the  Twenty-second  Psalm." 

Motley  tells  us  that  "  the  Psalms  were  translated  into 
Flemish  verse  for  the  use  of  the  Reformed  Churches  by 
Philip  de  Maruix."  Afterward  he  styles  this  same  Marnix 
"the  poet,  the  orator,  and  hymn-book  maker;"  and  Marot's 
translation  of  the  Psalms,  "  Marot's  sacred  songs." 

How  triumphantly  our  controversial  friends  of  the  hymns 
can,  by-and-by,  quote  Motley,  the  prince  of  historians,  as 
proof  that  Huguenots  and  Hollanders  sang  hymns.  How 
easy  to  turn,  historically,  the  Psalms  of  the  Bible  iuto 
modern  hymns  of  uninspired  men ! 

Motley,  in  writing  of  these  authors  of  translations  and 
of  their  versions  of  the  Psalms,  and  of  their  use  by  the 
French  and  Flemish  churches,  had  not  in  his  mind  the 
technicalities  of  controversialists,  and  staved  not  to  make 
distinctions  ;  but,  in  the  language  of  his  own  New  England, 
calls  these  authors  and  their  versions  of  the  Psalms — the 
one  "  the  hymn-book  maker;"  the  other,  "Marot's 
songs"  while  really  writing  of  French  and  Flemish  versions 
of  the  Book  of  Psalms. 

THE   PALATINATE   jkHURCHES. 

The  following  extracts  from  the  Mercersburgh  U 
written  by  Charles  I'.  Krauth,  D.  D.,  may  be  scon  in  the 
United  Presbyterian  of  April  14,  1870: — 


CONCLUSION.  161 

"The  original  usage  and  tradition  of  the  Palatinate 
Church  was,  that  nothing  but  the  Psalms  and  the  poetical 
parts  of  Scripture  should  be  sung  in  public  worship.  The 
Palatinate  Church  order  says,  expressly:  'Touching  the 
singing  of  the  Psalms,  the  Apostle  Paul  exhorts,  etc.,  etc., 
wherefore  it  is  our  will  that  none  other  than  the  German 
Psalms  be  sung  in  our  churches.'  '  German  Psalms  shall  be 
sung  before  and  after  the  sermon.'  '  If  the  people  be  able 
to  sing,  a  penitential  Psalm  shall  be  sung.'  .  .  . 

"This  book  (spoken  of  in  the  first  extract)  has  the 
Psalms  rendered  very  closely,  not  with  interpolations, 
changes  of  meaning,  and  subjective  adaptations,  like  those 
of  Dr.  Watts,  but  rigorously  as  to  the  sense.  It  is  the  ver- 
sion of  Lobwasser,  the  Rouse  of  the  German  Church.  He 
was  a  Lutheran,  but  the  rigid  literalness  of  his  renderings 
prevented  their  use  in  the  Lutheran  Church.  The  desire 
of  the  Reformed  Church  evidently  was  to  have  the  Psalms 
as  nearly  like  the  original  as  was  consistent  with  their  being 
sung  by  the  people.  ...  To  sing  medications,  like  those  of 
Dr.  Watts  and  his  school,  as  the  very  Psalms  of  David, 
would  have  been  an  abomination  to  the  original  Reformed 
Churches.  .  .  .  We  speak  advisedly  when  we  say,  that  to 
the  whole  original  Reformed  Church,  and  especially  to  the 
Palatinate  Fathers,  a  large  proportion  of  what  is  sung  as 
1  Psalms '  in  the  English  congregations  of  the  German  Re- 
formed Church  would  have  been  intolerable,  on  the  ground 
that,  pretending  to  be  Psalms  of  David,  they  were  really 
the  Psalms  of  Dr.  Watts,  and  of  the  other  authors  of  the 
sacred  parodies.  When  the  German  Reformed  Church 
came  to  use  such  imitations  of  the  Psalms,  she  never  put 
them  among  the  Psalms,  but  where  they  belong,  among 
hymns — human  effusions  suggested  by  divine  originals. 
The  other  course  is  a  complete  confounding  of  the  unequivo- 
cally apocryphal  with  the  canonical,  and  the  effect  has  been 


162  PSALMODY. 

very  mischievous.     Dr.  Watts'  Psalms  have  virtually  had 
the  authority  of  inspiration  with  those  who  sing  them." 

It  will  require  more  historic  evidence  than  is  furnished 
by  Mosheim,  Neander,  and  all  the  copyists  of  Lutheran 
historians,  to  establish  the  hypothesis  that  the  Apostolic 
Church  —  the  Waldensian — the  French  Protestant  and 
Huguenot — the  Continental  Reformed — the  Scottish  Pres- 
byterian,  were  all  hymn-singing  churches ;  or,  to  establish 
as  a  historical  truth,  that  with  all  these  churches  unin- 
spired hymns  were  the  rule,  and  inspired  Bible  songs  the 
exception 

HISTORY   NOT    THE    RULE    OF    FAITH    AND    WORSHIP. 

That  uninspired  hymns  may  have  been  introduced,  as 
other  heresies,  in  the  third  or  fourth  centuries,  we  are  not 
very  careful  to  deny.  That  such  hymns  were  used  in  the 
worship  of  God,  under  the  influence  of  the  Roman  apos- 
tacy,  we  do  not  pretend  to  deny.  That  Luther  brought 
with  him  from  Rome  his  love  of  hymns',  as  his  love  of  con- 
substantiation,  is  too  palpable  to  admit  of  denial.  That 
Lutheran  historians  were  even  bigots  for  hymns,  we  are 
not  inclined  to  deny.  That  they  impartially  represent 
either  Presbyterianism  or  a  Scripture  psalmody,  we  are  in 
no  haste  to  grant.  The  Lutheran  Church,  in  many  things, 
was  never  much  more  than  half  reformed.  AVhile  other 
Reformed  churches  were  chanting  the  songs  of  the  Bible, 
Lutheran  churches  were  singing  Lutheran  hymns. 

Lutheran  historians  sometimes  prove  nothing  by  at- 
tempting to  prove  too  much  ;  as,  that  Scripture  Psalms 
were  not  sung  in  the  Christian  Church  till  the  third  or 
fourth   century.      Nobody  believes  this — not   even   those 

who  quote  and  use  the  statement.  And  further,  were  more 
even  than  is  well  attested  true,  what  could  that  settle  in 
this  controversy?     Can  any  way  of  worship  claim  Divine 


CONCLUSION.  163 

authority  because  early  and  extensively  practised  in  the 
Christian  Church  ?  Antichrist,  that  wicked  one,  began  to 
work  as  early  as  the  time  of  the  beloved  disciple  John. 
His  anti-Christian  corruptions  have  been  steadily  working 
ever  since,  and  are  now,  as  ever,  working,  carrying  the 
multitude,  as  on  the  bosom  of  a  flood,  with  them.  Are 
these  corruptions  therefore  right  ?  The  same  line  of  argu- 
ment is  used,  and  with  better  grace,  by  Arians,  Baptists, 
Prelatists,  and  Papists.  And  will  all  their  appeals  to  his- 
tory and  to  the  Fathers  convert  Presbyterians  from  their 
and  our  beloved,  old  apostolical  and  scriptural  Presbyte- 
rianism  ?  Never  !  And  why  ?  Simply  because  our  home — 
the  home  of  our  dear  Presbytery — is  the  Bible. 

Before  we  shall,  in  this  controversy,  be  affected  by  ap- 
peals to  history,  any  more  than  in  the  controversy  with 
Prelacy,  our  friends  must  furnish  something  more  tangible, 
something  more  reliable,  something  more  like  fact  and  Bible 
teaching.  We  demand  some  author  or  authors  of  a  hymn- 
book  or  hymn-books,  some  supreme  judicatory  or  judica- 
tories, which  received,  examined,  approved,  and  authorized 
them  to  be  sung  in  all  the  churches,  and  that  were  sung  in 
all  the  churches  during  the  first  three  centuries.  We  chal- 
lenge even  the  shadow  of  authentic  historical  evidence  that 
any  poet  prepared  a  book  of  hymns,  that  any  apostolical 
supreme  judicatory  ever  sat,  01; counselled,  or  deliberated, 
or  adjudicated  upon  such  hymn-book,  or  upon  the  adoption 
of  any  system  of  psalmody  at  all.  More :  we  challenge 
authentic  history  for  one  single  instance  of  the  "  Presbyte- 
rian way  "  of  preparing  hymns  for  the  Church,  outside  the 
Papacy,  for  fourteen  centuries  from  Christ.  We  demand 
the  Watts  of  the  Waldensian  Church,  his  hymn-book,  the 
approval  and  sanction  of  the  Waldensian  supreme  judica- 
tory, and  the  use  of  such  hymn-book  before  the  fifteenth 
century.    So  we  demand  of  all  the  early  Reformed  Churches 


164  PSALMODY. 

— the  Lutheran,  of  course,  excepted.  We  are  aware  the 
Lutheran  and  all  the  other  German  Reformed  Churches 
were  at  odds  on  the  subject  of  the  "rigid  literalness"  of  the 
renderings  of  Lobwasser,  the  Rouse  of  the  German  Re- 
formed Churches.  There  is  more  of  authentic  history  and 
testimony  bearing  on  the  question  of  psalmody  in  the  brief 
quotation  from  the  "Palatinate  Order'1 — the  organic  law 
and  directory  for  worship  of  the  Reformed  Churches — than 
in  all  the  scraps  of  Lutheran  history,  gathered  and  paraded 
mostly  without  satisfactory  vouchers.  There  is,  too,  more 
evidence  in  the  statements  of  Motley  in  regard  to  the  Flem- 
ish version  of  Philip  de  Marnix  for  the  use  of  the  Reformed 
Churches — the  French  version  of  Marot,  and  the  German 
of  Lobwasser ;  for  here  are  the  translators,  their  tangible 
and  veritable  versions,  the  veritable  churches  and  their 
organic  law,  settling  the  use  of  a  Scripture  psalmody. 
Where,  till  the  time  of  Watts,  among  Reformed  churches, 
the  author,  the  hymn-book,  the  judicial  sanction  of  any 
Reformed  church  in  the  modern  Presbyterian  way  ? 

The  inflexible  tenacity  of  Luther  was  proverbial.  His 
favorite  motto,  "Hoe  est  meum  corpus"  behind  which  he 
entrenched  himself  in  battling  for  a  darling  heresy,  was 
but  the  index  to  the  man  and  his  disciples,  who  so  often 
betrayed  their  neutrality  in  the  struggles  of  reformers  with 
papal  tyranny,  or  their  sympathies  with  popish  ritualism. 

And  then,  what  sin,  heresy,  error,  or  corruption  in  wor- 
ship, cannot  be  proved  venerable  and  hoary  by  history? 
Slavery  has  reigned  for  cycles  of  centuries  ;  when,  since  the 
days  of  Nimrod,  did  it  not  curse  the  earth?  Pupal  and 
pr  el  a  tic  corruption,  ritualism,  superstition,  will-worship  and 
tyranny  have  dominated  over  tiie  masses  —  "the  world 
wondering  after  the  beast" — for  twelve  hundred  years.  Is 
all  this,  therefore,  right,  and  of  God?  Rather,  in  stead, 
Christ's  two  witnesses  are  right,  and  their  testimony  ap- 


CONCLUSION.  1G5 

proved  of  God,  though  wearing  sackcloth,  and  in  number 
as  two  to  one  hundred  and  forty  and  jour  thousand  with  the 
Lamb  on  the  Mount  Zion. 

THE    MISTAKE    AND    ITS    FATAL    TENDENCIES. 

Our  brethren  object  to  our  way  of  worship,  because,  as 
they  charge,  "  it  comes  short  of  the  New  Testament  pattern 
in  some  of  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Gospel ;"  and 
"  our  trumpet  gives  so  uncertain  a  sound,  our  testimony  for 
the  great  vital  truth  of  Christianity  is  so  vague  and  feeble, 
that  Arians  and  Jews  cordially  hold  communion  with  us. 
Can  this  be  right  ?  Where  in  the  Psalms  are  we  taught 
that  the  babe  of  Bethlehem  was  the  child  born,  the  Son 
given  of  prophecy  ?" 

We  are  sorry  to  see  here,  as  elsewhere,  the  inability  of 
our  brethren  to  see  Christ  in  the  Psalms  as  he  is  really  there. 
We  are  sorry  our  friends  cannot  see  Him  as  He  saw  and 
pointed  others  to  Himself  in  them  ;  that  they  cannot  see 
Him  as  Apostles  and  inspired  writers  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment saw  Him,  and  there  point  to  Him  so  clearly  in  so 
many  Psalms  where  neither  His  disciples  nor  we  would 
have  otherwise  discovered  Him.  Brethren,  we  are  aware 
that  your  cause  and  consistency  demand  that  you  see  as 
little  of  Christ  and  of  spirituality  as  possible  in  the  Psalms. 
You  need  to  have  the  veil  of  Moses  or  of  prejudice  well 
drawn  over  your  minds  when  you  read  or  sing  the  Psalms, 
lest  you  should  see  too  much  of  Christ,  of  his  fulness,  and 
•f  their  spirituality  and  richness;  and  lest  you  should  feel 
the  heart-warming  power  of  His  love  and  grace  reflected 
from  this  part  of  His  own  perfect  and  transforming  mirror. 
Such  discoveries  are  always,  and,  necessarily,  fatal  to  your 
cause.  Though  this  may  seem  a  hard  charge,  yet  it  is  in 
fact  true ;  for,  in  fact  you  endeavor  to  hide — pressed  in 
debate  by  the  necessity  of  your  cause — Christ  from  your- 


1G6  PBAUfODY. 

selves  and  all  others  in  the  use  of  the  Psalms.  For  ex- 
ample of  fact,  you  lay  Christ  aside,  put  the  veil  over  Him 
as  He  is  in  the  First  Psalm;  because,  assuming  that  Christ 
is  not  "  that  man  of  perfect  blessedness,  who  walketh  not 
astray  " — as  he  is,  primarily,  that  veritable  man — you  think 
you  have  a  vantage  ground ;  and  so  you  assume  it,  and  so 
improve  it  for  the  defence  of  your  cause.  You  shut  your 
eyes  to  the  truth  that  no  ';  mere  man  "  is  there  described  ; 
that  "  no  mere  man  since  the  fall,"  even  for  one  day,  failed 
to  go  astray  in  thought,  word,  and  deed.  So  you  cannot 
afford  to  have  the  Man  of  the  Twenty -fourth  Psalm  to  be 
the  Man  Christ,  whose  ascension  we  sing  there — the  Man 
of  "clean  hands"  and  "pure  heart;"  true  of  none  but  the 
Man  who  led  captivity  captive,  and  who  is  the  King  of 
glory.  What  else  but  this  dreadful  fatality  could  have 
led  one  of  the  champion  defenders  of  your  cause,  in  speak- 
ing of  the  Sixteenth  Psalm,  to  use  such  expression  as  this : 
"  This  is  plainly  the  sense,  for  how  could  David's  soul  (not 
his  body)  be  left  in  the  grave?"  What,  but  some  blind 
fatuity,  induced  by  the  spell  of  partisan  controversy  in  a 
bad  cause,  could  lead  men,  otherwise  intelligent,  to  use  such 
language  in  the  very  face  of  the  positive  declaration  of 
holy  writ,  that  the  expression  of  the  Psalm  refers  to  the 
resurrection  of  Christ,  and  no  more  to  David  than  to  Adam? 
So,  to  subserve  a  bad  cause,  a  veil  must,  as  much  as  pos- 
sible, be  thrown  over  the  Psalms  to  hide  Christ  from  the 
faith  of  the  worshipper. 

Oh,  how  many  precious  Psalms,  redolent  with  Christ, 
might  we  place  in  this  category  !  But  how  painful !  Rather, 
in  what  Psalm  is  there  nothing  of  Christ?  What  one  is  not 
the  very  word  of  Christ?  What  one  speaks  not  of  His 
person,  His  work,  His  Gospel,  His  grace,  or  His  hidden 
life. 

Yes,  brethren,  wc  do  find  in  the  Psalms  Christ,  that  Man 


CONCLUSION.  167 

of  "perfect  blessedness"  that  Man  of  "clean  hands  and 
pure  hearth  We  can  find,  too,  that  babe  of  Bethlehem, 
His  birth  and  birthplace,  His  life,  His  sufferings,  His  death, 
His  resurrection,  His  ascension,  His  glory  and  reign — all, 
all  in  the  Psalms;  and  there  delineated  with  a  master's 
hand  as  human  poet's  pen  can  never  do.  And  just  here 
you  or  we  are  fatally  mistaken.  Do  we  find  too  much  of 
Christ  and  His  salvation  in  the  Psalms  ?  Are  we  in  danger 
here  of  clinging  too  closely  to  the  Bible  songs  to  find  and 
enjoy  that  measure  of  communion  with  our  Saviour  that 
we  might  by  drawing  from  the  effusions  of  uninspired 
poets?  Can  we,  indeed,  be  in  danger  of  finding  too  much 
spirituality  in  the  inspired  songs  of  Christ's  own  word  ? 

Let  me  say,  here,  Christ  is  found  in  the  Psalms,  and  of 
design,  as  in  no  other  composition  of  the  Bible.  The  Evan- 
gelists, as  in  no  other  part  of -the  Bible,  give  the  history  of 
the  outer  man  of  Christ,  as  He  was  seen,  and  heard,  and 
as  He  lived  among  men.  The  Psalms  unfold  His  hidden 
life,  the  life  of  His  soul — the  hidden,  inward,  deep  sorrows 
of  the  soul  of  the  Man  of  sorrows,  as  no  where  else.  Hear 
Himself  speak  the  touching  tones  of  the  unutterable  agonies 
of  the  inner  soul : — 

"Of  death  the  cords  and  sorrows  did  about  me  compass  round; 
The  pains  of  hell  took  hold  on  me;  I  grief  and  trouble  found." 

What  sinner,  under  evangelical  conviction  for  sin,  can 
tail  to  find  in  this  mirror  the  life-painting  of  the  inner  con- 
trition and  pangs  of  an  awakened  soul  ?  And  as  Christ's 
inward  experience  as  in  the  Psalms  delineated — whether 
His  sorrows,  His  joys,  His  faith  or  hope — is  the  perfect 
model  of  all  Christian  experience  and  of  all  gracious  at- 
tainments, so  His  life  there  is  presented  as  the  perfect  mot  ltd 
of  Christian  life.  As  Christ  never  walked  astray,  as  His 
hands  were  perfectly  clean,  and  His  heart  perfectly  pure, 


168  PSALMODY. 

so  we  should  aim  and  must  attain  before  we  shall  appear 
witji  Him  in  glory. 

Again,  we  think  you  here  come  in  contact  with  an  im- 
portant Bible  principle — to  make  a  man  an  offender  for 
a  word  which  God  in  his  word  condemns.  In  the  Psalms 
we  have  the  things  which  you  deny  there,  because  the  spirit 
of  inspiration  has  not  chosen  the  words  that  please  you. 
We  certainly  find  the  birth  of  Christ  in  more  Psalms  than 
one,"  and  according  to  prophecy  the  place,  too,  in  words  we 
understand  ;  and,  if  you  cannot  so  understand,  we  are  sorry. s 
We  try  to  read  and  sing  the  Psalms  of  the  Bible  with  the 
veil  of  Moses  laid  aside,  which,  perhaps,  if  you  succeed  in 
throwing  off,  you  may  discover  the  Christ  in  Bethlehem 
born  in  Psalm  exxxii.  Instead  of  the  old  veil,  we  endeavor 
to  read  and  sing  with  the  new  glasses  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment on  our  eyes.  We  interpret  our  Psalms  by  the  com- 
mentary of  the  New  Testament.  This  we  find  to  be  the 
true  key,  and  here  we  find  the  true  glasses.  Christ  gave 
these  glasses  for  the  very  purpose  of  the  better  seeing  Him 
in  the  Psalms. 

In  regard  to  the  very  verbiage  of  the  Psalms,  it  would 
seem  they  were  clothed  in  terms  designed  to  obviate  the 
very  objections  pressed  against  their  use.  This  fact  is 
certainly  remarkable  everywhere  in  speaking  of  Christ — 
His. birth,  life,  sufferings,  death,  resurrection,  ascension, 
session  at  God's  right  hand — all  as  past ;  when  to  be,  or  yet 
to  come  ?  How  much  easier  for  us  than  for  the  Jews  to 
Bing  in  "literal  form?"  Moses'  veil — with  other  veils — off, 
we  can  read  their  design  for  New  Testament  use  especially, 
and  most  consistently  sing,  in  very  words,  a  Saviour  came. 
Were  the  Psalms  prepared  specially  for  a  dispensation 
Lasting,  after  they  were  given,  but  a  few  hundred  years,  or 
for  one  of  more  thousands  of  years?  Were  they  prepared 
for  Jews  or  for  Christians  i   In  literal  form,  for  which  more 


CONCLUSION.  169 

literally  appropriate  ?  But  Christ's  Church  bone.  Praise, 
a  moral  duty,  is  one  and  unchanged  by  change  of  dispen- 
sation. 

In  bidding  farewell  to  our  readers,  permit  us  to  ad- 
dress a  parting  word  to  the  friends  of  a  Scripture  psalmody. 

Remember  the  importance  of  Bible  knowledge.  Re- 
member Christ  has  said,  "  Search  the  Scriptures,  for  they 
are  they  which  testify  of  me."  Just  in  proportion  as  we 
study  the  word  of  God,  just  as  we  study  to  understand  the 
teachings  of  the  Psalms,  so  will  we  love  them,  so  will  we 
find  Christ  in  them,  so  will  we  enjoy  and  profit  by  their 
use,  finding  in  them  food  for  our  souls.  Remember  man 
shall  not  live  by  bread  alone,  but  by  every  word  which 
proceedeth  out  of  the  mouth  of  God.  Whatever  order  or 
matter  of  worship  will  bring  us  into  closer  contact  with  the 
Divine  mirror,  that  is  the  safest  way  of  worship,  bringing 
the  greater  glory  to  God,  and  the  larger  measure  of  enjoy- 
ment to  ourselves.  In  the  study  and  singing  of  inspired 
Psalms  we  bring  our  hearts  under  the  direct  influence  of 
the  reflecting  and  transforming  power  of  that  glass,  be- 
holding in  which  "we  are  changed  into  the  same  image 
from  glory  to  glory,  even  as  by  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord." 
The  Divine  Spirit  and  Author  of  sanctification,  we  think, 
prefers  to  use  His  own  mirror.  We  may  be  assured  He 
will  have  respect  to  the  Saviour's  prayer:  "  Sanctify  them 
through  Thy  truth  ;  Thy  word  is  truth."  Can  we  doubt 
that  the  safer  way  is  the  use  of  Scripture  songs,  which  we 
know,  with  unwavering  confidence,  have  the  approval  of 
God ;  while  we  cannot  have  the  same  assurance  that  He 
approves  the  use  of  the  erring  effusions  of  uninspired  erring 
men?  "He  that  doubteth  is  damned  if  he  eat."  Can  we, 
with  the  same  confidence  of  faith,  sing  one  thing  as  well 
as  another?  "Whatsoever  i<  not  of  faith  is  sin."  Can  we 
15 


170  PSALMODY. 

sing  the  songs  of  God's  word  in  faith?  Certainly!  is  the 
prompt  answer  of  every  believing  heart.  Can  we  as  well 
sing  in  faith  what  man  says — man's  words t  No  man, fear- 
ing God,  and  believing  His  word  as  the  only  ground  of 
faith,  can,  without  trembling  misgivings,  at  once  respond, 
"Certainly/"  Ah,  how  significant  the  contrast  here!  Yet, 
certainly,  the  language  of  the  heart,  inspired  by  faith  and 
love  to  the  Saviour,  when  the  sound  of  the  inspired  pong 
falls  upon  the  ear,  will  be — "The  voice  of  my  Beloved! 
behold,  He  cometh  leaping  upon  the  mountains,  skipping 
upon  the  hills."  Such  is  the  secret  power  of  the  hand  of 
that  "  voice  that  knocketh"  standing  at  the^door, — a  power 
that  moves  the  heart  and  opens  its  foldings. 

For  Christian  walk  we  have  the  counsel  of  unerring  Wis- 
dom here.  Here  wre  have  the  exhibitions  of  the  life  and 
character  of  the  perfect  Man,  the  Divine  Man  and  mode1 
of  Christian  life  and  Christian  attainments.  Here  is  con- 
spicuously set  before  us  the  Divine  " scojoos"  the  mark  at 
which  we  must  aim,  and  to  which  wre  must  run.  Here  is 
revealed  the  hidden  life  and  perfect  model  of  Christian 
experience — the  model  test  by  which  every  grace  and  ev 
exercise  of  grace  can  so  satisfactorily  and  safely  be  tested. 
Here,  too,  is  food  for  the  soul,  which,  while  it  satiates,  it 
never  cloys  nor  tends  to  loathing;  as  honey,  ever  sweeter; 
as  richest  pastures,  ever  fresh  and  green  ;  as  crystal  stream-, 
never  fouled;  the  bread  and  water,  eating  and  drinking, 
we  shall  live  upon  and  never  hunger,  never  die.  But  when 
the  dissolving  time  for  this  clay-house  shall  come,  how 
believing  instinct  will  turn  to  that  Psalm  made  by  our 
Shepherd's  hand  for  the  dying  pillow!  How  many  head- 
have  rested  there,  and  trembling  hands  have  grasped  the 
staff  on  which  our  Shepherd  leaned. 

"Yea,  though  I  walk  in  death's  dark  rale,  yet  will  I  fear  no  ill: 

For  thou  art  with  inc.  and  iky  rod  and  ttdff  m*  OOmforl  -till." 


CONCLUSION.  171 

Around  these  dear  old  songs,  ever  new,  our  affections 
cluster  and  linger.  On  these  our  faith  has  often  rested, 
and  our  hope  anchored.  From  these,  in  the  dark  hours  of 
our  pilgrimage,  a  cheering  light  has  gleamed  along  our 
pathway,  lightening  up  with  brightness  so  often.  We  have 
seen  our  fathers  pass  along  the  dark  valley,  staying  their 
steps  down  to  the  brink,  and  through  the  swellings  of  Jor- 
dan, with  these  as  the  Shepherd's  staff  in  hand — these,  the 
veritable  covenant  promises,  all  their  salvation,  all  their 
desire.  On  these  it  is  good  to  live ;  on  these  it  is  safe  to 
die. 

To  my  dear  brethren  in  the  ministry  permit  me  to  say : 
Be  not  moved  by  the  partisan  cry  of  "  Rouse's  poetry, 
patchwork,  paraphrase,  no  version  at  all."  This  is  the  last 
ditch  in  the  controversial  tactics  of  a  bad  cause.  If  our 
version  have  its  blemishes,  there  is  an  easy  remedy.  Trans- 
lations are  human  things.  Our  common  Bible  translation 
is  a  human  thing,  and  has  its  full  share  of  blemishes.  We 
are  not  irrevocably  pledged  to  any  version  of  inspired  songs. 
We  demonstrate  this  by  the  verbal  and  rhythmical  correc- 
tions of  our  old  version,  and  by  our  endeavors  to  secure 
new  and  improved  versions  as  we  are  able  to  add  them, 
keeping  steadily  in  view  the  integrity  of  translation  and 
the  literary  demands  of  the  age.  We  are  not  a  stand-still 
Church  in  matters  of  mere  form,  or  of  taste,  or  of  prefer- 
ence. In  matters  of  faith,  of  Christian  life  and  labors,  of 
divinely  instituted  worship,  let  it  be  far  otherwise  with  us. 
Let  us  ever  walk  with  firm,  unwavering  step  and  faith  into 
the  sacred  desk ;  there  read,  expound,  and  sing  those  pre- 
cious songs  of  the  divine  psalter  as  our  Master's  text-book, 
inspired  as  every  other  book  of  the  Bible  is  inspired.  We 
know  that  with  us  it  is  not  the  preference  of  one  hymn- 
book  over  another,  or  one  version  even  exclusively. 


172 


ioDV. 


We  know,  from  comparison  with  the  original  text,  the 
songs  we  sing  in  the  public  worship  of  God  are  His  in- 
spired word,  if  we  have  that  word  in  our  own  language  at 
all.  With  the  text  in  our  hands,  before  our  conscience,  in 
the  presence  of  our  flocks,  and  before  the  presence  of  our 
covenant  God,  we  can  roll  back  every  challenge,  whether 
from  enemies  without,  or  from  unbelief  within  ;  we  know 
and  feel  these  songs  to  be  the  testimony  of  Jesus,  the  word 
of  Christ,  which  He  commands  to  let  dwell  in  us  richly,  the 
ground  of  our  faith,  and  His  truth  unchallenged.  Are  not 
these  the  Shepherd's  pastures,  where  we  should  lead  His 
flocks?  And  are  not  these  the  running  streams  of  the 
water  of  life  by  which  He  would  have  us  gently  lead  His 
lambs?  Oh,  these  are  healthier  pastures  ;  these  are  purer 
waters  than  those  to  which  the  flocks  of  the  companions 
turn  aside. 

Friends  of  union  :  How  long  shall  the  sword  devour? 
For  the  scathed  tribes  of  Israel  is  there  no  gathering  time? 
Faith  brings  her  answer :  "  Zion's  watchmen  shall  lift  up 
their  voice ;  with  the  voice  together  shall  they  sing ;  for 
they  shall  see  eye  to  eye,  when  the  Lord  shall  bring  again 
Zion."  Nothing  more  certain  in  the  future  than  a  union 
in  the  psalmody  of  the  Churches.  Can  that  be  on  the 
basis  of  any  sectarian  or  denominational  hvmnology? 
Why  may  it  not  be  on  the  songs  of  the  Bible  ?  Could  these 
be  offensive  to  any,  or  a  stumbling  block  to  anything  but 
bigotry  ?  Is  there  not  matter  enough  in  all  the  songs  of 
the  Bible  for  all  the  reasonable  purposes  of  social  praise? 
Are  they  not  suitable?  Are  they  not  greatly  superior  to 
any  hymnal  extant,  or  any  that  man  can  make?  AVhy, 
then,  not  unite  where  there  can  be  a  basis  of  union  for  all  ? 

The  Lord  hasten  it  in  IIi>  time!  And  to  this  end  may 
the  Lord  bless  our  feeble  reasoning  together  through  these 
humble  pages. 


